Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Host lounge/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Inactive hosts and bot signatures

Moved here from the Questions page DES ^(talk) 22:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC) [1] it looks like User:Soni has not edited in several months. What is the process for ensuring that welcome messages are not given "by" inactive editors? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure, TRPoD. I suspect one would have to take his name off the list of hosts. Today is honestly the first time that I realized that invites were being auto-sent in the "name" of various hosts. DES ^(talk) 21:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been answering queries here for very long and maybe it's just a temporary thing, but quite a few of the hosts listed at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts don't actually seem to be active on this page. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Quite correct. I just scanned though the list, and I see maybe 15 that I recognize as fairly frequent posters here over say the last three months, and perhaps another 10 that I recall as having posted here at all in the last 6-9 months. Aside from this "signing" thing and any possible confusion it may cause, i don't see any major harm in it. If a formerly active host doesn't post here, no one is likely to look up his or her Teahouse profile. Perhaps that practice of having a host "sign" a bot-generated message should be re-thought. DES ^(talk) 22:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think it's a problem in and of itself, but combined with the bot signing in their names, it could become an issue. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

End of moved text DES ^(talk) 22:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I moved the thread here because it didn't really fit on the questions page, this is about how the Teahouse is/should be run. I am inclined to think that putting a host's name on a bot-delivered message is a bad idea, particualrly now that so many hosts are listed but apparently inactive, at least as hosts. Does anyone think differently? @TheRedPenOfDoom, Cordless Larry, Fuhghettaboutit, GrammarFascist, PrimeHunter, Yunshui, Cullen328, Jayron32, Timtrent, Vchimpanzee, David Biddulph, Dodger67, Arjayay, I, JethroBT, ColinFine, John from Idegon, Marchjuly, and W.carter: DES ^(talk) 23:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

For those not aware Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts/Database reports/Automated invites indicates that all automated Teahouse invitatiosn sent by User:HostBot are "signed" with the name of a Teahouse host, apparently limited to a list on that page. The list currently includes 15 names, most of whom are not currently active in answering Teahouse questions, and have not been for some time. DES ^(talk) 23:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems that User:Jtmorgan maintains HostBot. I am pinging him or her to this discussion. DES ^(talk) 23:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hosts come and go, and I think that it is far better to have an invitation signed by an active host than an inactive one. I am not a programmer, but I am aware that the bot that changes host photos/images at the Teahouse questions page detects which hosts are active and never shows an inactive host. Perhaps some talented "code monkey" could generate invitation signatures the same way, instead of working from a static list. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Like Cordless Larry, DES, I haven't been answering questions at the Teahouse for very long (though it's become something I do on nearly a daily basis). The only real problem I can see with bots signing inactive hosts' names to the messages left on new users' pages welcoming them to the Teahouse is that a new user seeing such a message might go to the named host's user/talk page and leave a message there asking for help, especially if there's language on the host's page encouraging newbie questions. And if the host in question is inactive on Wikipedia, not just at the Teahouse, it's not optimal for new users seeking help to be made to feel ignored. What technical solutions to the issue are possible, though, I have no idea. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 23:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

There's something unseemly about anyone getting a message posing as a personal invite from a human being that is really a bot, but much more so where the actual person supposedly inviting is not in some way informed of each invite they gave. (Are they?) The fact only three or four names on that list appear to be semi-regular contributors would be a problem even if I thought doing this was a good idea.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is my feeling as well. I think it would be better to remove the fake host from the bot message. Maybe there could be a daily opt in with a "please welcome X people in my name today" . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, by "daily opt in" I was not recommending a daily post on the potential host greeters talk page but a page where the host greeter could go each day they felt welcoming and click a "send X welcome invites in my name". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The bot is not leaving a message on the talk page of the host who is named on the message, and I don't think anythign it does would trigger a notification. Indeed given that up to 100 invitations are attributed to no more than 15 hosts, any such messages or notifications would soon become onerous, I suspect. Since the page linked above says that when tested this "personal touch" made no significant difference in outcomes, why retain it? DES ^(talk) 23:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/HostBot to see what messages the Bot is sending. DES ^(talk) 23:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HostBot 2 for the original bot approval, which discussed this isue quite breifly, but didn't really consider the long-term consequences, it seems to me. DES ^(talk) 00:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right; what use in a user being told their name has been faked this week to [insert 700 names]. I skimmed the approval discussion it but didn't find where the bot posting from the list users is even mentioned (the only thing I saw related was just an opposite notion, which I am in agreement with: "We intend to adjust the language of the invite template so that new users are aware that it was delivered by a bot, not a human." Okay I;ve just looked at the actual message it's all backwards. Yes they sign for the person, then there's the message "This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend" If I was new here and got this message, I'd really be scratching my head. It's an automated message, but signed by someone but then says its from a robot, and then the robot says it's a friend? That reminds me of all those insurance commercials, the ones leaving ashes in your mouth, where the whole message is We Care About You! to convince they are the opposite of what they are. The bot should say it's an automated message, not then say something implicitly empty and false, and then say something about the Teahouse being populated by friendly humans.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

If I got a daily message asking me to invite 15 (arbitrary number) new editors to the Teahouse, with a button that took me to their user (or talk) page, then another button that sent an invitation message that I could personalize as I saw fit, then that would be a good thing, in my opinion. Teahouse answers should always be individually personalized, though. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I've not got much to add to the above, other than to say that I wouldn't be happy for a bot to sign in my name without having personal control over its actions. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I quite like Cullen's idea of an invitation to post an invitation, although it could become rather onerous as a manual task. Failing that, I see nothing wrong with having a bot deliver the messages as a bot; it seems rather pointless to randomly append someone's name to what is obviously an auto-generated message. I'd support a move to take personal signatures off the invitation and just leave it as a bot invite. Yunshui ^雲_水 06:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit:, I was referring to the comment that read "The 0.6% difference between the response rates isn't statistically significant, so essentially any difference either way is probably random variation. Additional experimentation (with a larger sample, or a greater degree of personalization in the 'treatment' template) could determine differently, but it's not my highest priority as a researcher. I personally think that--assuming we don't feel the need to test out new and fascinating permutations on personalization--future invites should contain a host name. It just seems nicer to provide invitees with a personal point of contact. Don't you think? Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 6:37 pm, 2 October 2012, Tuesday (UTC−4)" and the response to that comment.

@Cullen328:, if I read things correctly, that sort of approach -- have a script generate a list of new users to invite, then allow humans to actually deliver the invitations -- was tried when the Teahouse was new, and the result was that many people on the list were never invited. I suspect that would happen again, and I don't see that much value in a human acting as a tool for a bot, just so that we can say that a human was involved. @Yunshui: I agree, we should take the names of human hosts off the messages, and otherwise leave the system unchanged. DES ^(talk) 13:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC) @Yunshui: Re-pinging due to typo. DES ^(talk) 13:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Thank you! I missed that in my skim. If not clear, I too support continued use of the Bot, but removal of the host names, and urge removal of the strikingly disingenuous "your robot friend".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The technical discussion has been interesting, if partly over my head. I think I will cast my vote with @Yunshui:, @DESiegel: and @Fuhghettaboutit:, in favor of allowing the bot to continue distributing invitations but without making reference to Teahouse hosts in the bot's message. (I'm not strongly opposed to the "your robot friend" part, but I'm not strongly in favor of it either.)

At the same time, @Cullen328:'s idea to have an opt-in for hosts to send personal invites could be useful for some of us. As I understand it, the bot will only invite a maximum of 100 new users a day; if there were a list somewhere of identified new users that the bot didn't invite due to having hit the 100-user limit, I'd probably visit that page at least occasionally to send personal, human-delivered invitations from. I don't know if there would be technical issues with marking those users off as already invited so the bot didn't just re-invite them the next day, though. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 18:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I also support the bot continuing, but without a host's name at the end of the message. I'm agnostic about "your robot friend". Cordless Larry (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

GrammarFascist, according to the pages linked above, if there is any link to the Teahouse (such as a manual invite or a welcome version including a teahouse link) then the bot skips that user, and it only considers very recently created users in any case. User:Jtmorgan indicated that he maintains a db table that lists users invited and users skipped. I haven't checked if this is still being kept up to date. Before the bot did invites it created a daily list of users suitable for invitation, I suppose such a list, sans any actually invited, could be created. I'm not sure how many new users who qualify by the current criteria there are left after 100 invites, during the tests the bot did not reach the maximum of 100 users/day before running out of eligible new users, according to statements made in the bot approval application linked above. DES ^(talk) 19:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• support continued use of Welcome bot. remove specific name of a random ghost sender. I wouldn't use "your robot friend", but i think that falls into the bot owners purview and if they want to keep it, it am not opposed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• comment Hi everyone. I'm glad this is being discussed--it's useful to re-evaluate the decisions that were made... wow, some more than 3 years ago now. Here's a little background: The inviter list (people whose names appear on the invites) contains only names of people who have explicitly asked to have their names included on Teahouse invites. I manually update the inviter list, adding and removing peoples' names when they request it, or if someone alerts me that they should no longer be listed for other reasons. I did that most recently in August[2]. I also occasionally (but perhaps not frequently enough, based on what I'm hearing on this thread) post to this page to check whether people still want their names included on the list. I did this most recently in December 2014. The on-wiki list reflects the actual list, which is stored here in the HostBot code repo. I wrap inviter names in the {{noping}} template so that the invite doesn't generate an @mention. Originally, I didn't use noping, but inviters were soon overwhelmed with the number of mentions they received, so I changed it. I personally still think it's better to have a name attached to each invite, but the current workflow is hard to maintain manually: I can't manually add/remove people from the list every time they take a wikibreak, or a host break. Here are some options that we could implement:

1. keep hostnames on the invites (status quo), but make it easier for hosts to inspect the current inviter list and tell me when to add/remove names. Perhaps post a banner at the top of this page informing hosts of the list, and how to request changes?
2. keep hostnames on the invite list, but only include the names of hosts who are currently active on the Teahouse. Maintain a manual opt-in list, so that hosts who are active but do NOT want their names on invites aren't included. Maintaining this list will still require periodic check-ins (natural host attrition will cause the number of active hosts on any static list to shrink over time).
3. stop inviting people via bot. I don't recommend this, for reasons identified by other hosts above: it's really, really hard to maintain a high enough volume of invites to keep the Teahouse active if we rely solely on a manual approach.

For those hosts who want to supplement the bot-driven invites by manually inviting good-faith new editors that the bot missed, I recommend using Snuggle, a tool that algorithmically identifies motivated, promising new editors and allows you to easily send them a Teahouse invite (as well as other messages). I'm happy to implement whatever solution consensus supports. Cheers, Jtmorgan (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

In the interim, please note that Lightbreather has been banned by the Arbitration Committee, so should be removed immediately. You can add my name if you wish. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cullen. Sorry, Lightbreather was removed, and their name hasn't appeared on any invites since the diff in question. I just forgot to check my code changes into the repo. Repo updated now. Jtmorgan (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Jtmorgan You don't mention the option of "Continue to invite people by bot, but don't include any individual host name with the bot invites". Is there a technical problem with this option? It seems to be the one most favored in this discussion. Frankly, I have a problem with messages being sent in the name of users who haven't specifically authorized those specific messages, even if they have authorized such messages in general. Moreover, I think many users, or at least some users, will spot this as probably not truly an individual interaction, and that will actually hurt our image, and be seriously counterproductive. I think it is both better in principle and better in effect to be upfront that the invite is automated, but the messages at the Teahouse itself are from actual experienced editors.

If we must, or if consensus favors, having an individual editor's name on each invite, then I suggest your option 2, with "active" being defined as "has made at least three posts to the Teahouse Questions page in the last 7 days" (or more strictly if others wish). If it can't be defined that strictly without a lot of work, I think that is added evidence for removing all host names from invites. DES ^(talk) 21:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

And by the way, many thanks for implementing and running HostBot, I do NOT want it to seem that we (or at least I) are ungrateful for the assistance the bot provides. DES ^(talk) 21:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather is still listed at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host landing#Lightbreather (and possibly elsewhere). Since she can't remove herself, should someone do that for her? --Boson (talk) 09:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Boson, thanks for pointing it out. I've removed that section. Nthep (talk) 10:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

DESiegel, Yeah, I'm fine with removing all names if consensus favors that solution (tho my !vote will be to keep names). But before we make that change, I'd like to get the input a majority of the hosts who have self-selected onto that list. This talkpage is not usually very active, so they might not all be aware of this thread. Could you ping them? And: thanks for the clarification I assure you I do not feel like anything about this discussion makes me feel like anyone's being ungrateful :) Anyway, running the bot doesn't take too much time these days--most of the heavy lifting was done long ago. Implementing your "only include recently active hosts" solution won't be too difficult. Maintaining an opt in list as hosts come and go will probably take a little more time than the current solution, tho. I assume not every active host will want their name included on invites. Cheers, Jtmorgan (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Very well. What do any of you who signed up to have your names used on invites think? And should i make this a formal RfC to draw wider attention? @Rosiestep, Jtmorgan, MissVain, AmaryllisGardener, Doctree, Osarius, Nathan2055, Soni, Samwalton9, Worm That Turned, 78.26, ChamithN, Dathus, and Naypta: DES ^(talk) 22:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC) @Soni, Samwalton9, Worm That Turned, 78.26, ChamithN, Dathus, and Naypta: DES ^(talk) 22:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

That red link should be Missvain. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't really care if my username is used or not. It's fine with me. I don't respond as a host that often these days, but, I do monitor the forum. I'd like to not be removed as an active host, if possible. Missvain (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to remove my name, you can. I check WP every day, but I don't edit every day. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I've never been super active answering questions at the Teahouse. My primary role since the start-up days has always been "friendly inviter". And I still perform that task from time to time the old-fashioned manual way. If you'd prefer to remove my name from the bot messages, I'm ok with that, but I'd like to remain on as an active host and I'll continue inviting newbies along the way. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I remain active even though it's now rare for me to be the first to answer a question. Often I add another alternative as the fourth or fifth down. I keep WP:Teahouse/Questions watchlisted and check frequently but I don't post if a question is already answered adequately. I like that the bot adds a personal touch by appending my signature occasionally. A few new users have even come to my talk page. Scrub out the few who are totally inactive or should be removed for another reason but keep the personal touch of a signature. Take care all, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 18:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

As I see, it it's the exact opposite of a personal touch; it's a clearly fake personal touch, and as such, one that is far colder and offputting than letting the bot be a bot.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Including other hosts' names on the invites also reduces the traffic to my own talkpage, and introduces newbies to the some of the people behind the Teahouse. A lot of invitees post messages to my talkpage, because HostBot's talkpage redirects to mine. Often, these messages are just people saying "thanks for the invite", which is obviously great to hear. Other times, for whatever reason, invitees ask good-faith questions on my talkpage instead of at the Teahouse. Unfortunately, I'm not as active on wiki as most of the other hosts on the inviter list, so these requests may not get responded to in a timely fashion, and that's a shame. I don't think that giving those invitees an additional, personal point of contact--a real human who really does want to help new editors--to turn to if they feel more comfortable reaching out personally rather than publicly on the Teahouse (again, for whatever reason), is fake, cold, or offputting. And I haven't heard anything from that newcomers who post to my talkpage that would suggest otherwise. Jtmorgan (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. If the alternative to the bot 'signing' with Teahouse hosts' names is for it to have just a signature that's going to dump a lot of traffic to Jtmorgan's talk page, that seems less than optimal. @Cordless Larry, Cullen328, DESiegel, Fuhghettaboutit, TheRedPenOfDoom, and Yunshui: (I think that's everyone who expressed opposition to the pseudo-personal invitations) What would you think of keeping the host names on the invites, but changing the wording so it's no longer masquerading poorly as a personal invitation? Something like, "The Teahouse is a friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia, staffed by hosts who are available to answer questions. $name is one of the Teahouse hosts; you could also ask them questions at [[User talk:$name|their Talk page]]." Thoughts? —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 18:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I like that as an alternative. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

So do I. That would seem to serve all the positive values of the personal welcome without the possible downsides noted above. DES ^(talk) 19:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

That's fine by me too, although I should say that I'm not officially a host. I wouldn't be willing to sign up to be a host if the bot was going to sign in my name, but I'd be OK doing so under this proposed arrangement. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, the existing bot setup uses "inviter" names only from a separate list where people specifically opt-in for this purpose, i would assume this alternate solution would do the same. It would be nice if it could also check for some recent activity by the "inviter" either on the Teahouse or on Wikipedia generally before using the name, so we don't direct newbies to the talk page of someone on wiki-break. But I don't know if this is feasible without excessive work by the bot or the bot maintainer. Jtmorgan, would that be workable? say at least N posts in the past week, where N is some small number such as 3? DES ^(talk) 22:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Happy to set that up. Might take me a week or two to get to it, but as long as a little lag time isn't a big deal, consider it done. Jtmorgan (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I also like this solution. Cordless Larry and others: if this solution is implemented, ping me on my talkpage and I'll add your name to the list of 'direct contacts' who appear on the invite. Jtmorgan (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's the template, btw, when the time comes. I can't edit it myself. Jtmorgan (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Did anything get changed as a result of this discussion? I still see signs that people are getting confused. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't updated the bot yet--I'm collecting data right now for more Teahouse retention analysis (see below), so I'd rather not make the changes to the template until mid-December if at all possible. But I'm happy to implement the solution described by Grammar Fascist above. Once I've updated HostBot, I'll hail a passing admin to change the template to the new wording. Let's say... December 14th. Works? Jtmorgan (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine by me, Jtmorgan. I lost track of the discussion a bit and returned here to see that it just seemed to have ended without a clear conclusion. Thanks for taking the feedback on board. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed updates to invite template and inviter critera

What do people think of this invite?

Hi New editor! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 01:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I've tried to address the issues others have raised earlier in the thread about the invite being misleading, while maintaining a personal feel: there's still a link to an individual hosts' userpage, which gives each newcomer an individual point of contact, and also hopefuly reduces traffic to my own talkpage. The message is clearly sent by HostBot, but its ON BEHALF of all of us, with a link to the host gallery so the newcomer can see who we are. For comparison, click on any page in this list to see what the current invite template looks like on real users' talkpages. Regarding the second issue that was raised in the discussion above (removing names of inactive editors from the inviter list, so that newcomers aren't directed to the talkpages of people on wikibreak), I'd like to propose that the following:

• anyone can sign up to have their name on the invites (no change - this is how we currently do it)
• if that person hasn't edited Wikipedia within the past 30 days, their name will not be included on any invites until they begin editing again (change - I don't currently check if an inviter is active or not)
• if that person is currently blocked from editing their name will not be included on any invites (change - I don't currently check for block status)
• if that person has been banned, their name will not be included on any invites (change - I don't currently check this either)

Jtmorgan (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: Right now, the "Visit the Teahouse" button on the template above just appears for me as a bare blue link. Not sure why that is, but ignore it: the button should look the same as it does on the current version. Jtmorgan (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• I mentioned this on your talk page, but perhaps it should be discussed here since it is also about this template and the bot delivery of it. I see this template a lot on the talk page of users who have been receiving vandalism warnings, and at least once just after I blocked a user for socking. Seems like the bot should at least be able to detect if a user is blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I responded on my talkpage about the block issue. The bot has actually always invited users who have received certain kinds of low-severity warnings; the vast majority of new users who receive low level warnings are not operating in bad faith (@EpochFail: has some excellent research on this). The current list of templates & keywords that the bot uses as a first pass filter for avoiding sending Teahouse invites to likely bad-faith editors is available in the GitHub repo. I say 'current' because I'll soon be working with EpochFail to migrate HostBot to the new ORES system, which will make it easier to identify and avoid more bad-faith editors—and, more importantly, identify and invite good faith editors, sooner. J-Mo 00:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a view on this proposed new template, Cullen328, DESiegel, Fuhghettaboutit, TheRedPenOfDoom, Yunshui and GrammarFascist (apologies if I've missed any contributors to the earlier discussion)? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Good stuff, great improvement!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it is an improvement. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: @I JethroBT: has updated the invite template with the new wording. Invites themselves are currently not being sent, while I implement the other changes described above. They may be up and down intermittently over the next few days, but I should be able to put everything in place by Sunday. Thanks everyone! J-Mo 20:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Update 2 (Jan 19 2016): I've implemented new HostBot functionality to ensure that any host whose name shows up on the Teahouse invites is a) not blocked and b) currently active on Wikipedia. As always you can keep an eye on HostBot's recent contributions to keep track of daily invitations. Spot checks and heads-up are always appreciated :) Cheers, J-Mo 22:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Jtmorgan, just to let you know that transclusion from your sandbox appears to be resulting in appearance of the "Hello World" headings above. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, how come the bot is including my username on invites when I'm not listed as an official host? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Cordless Larry re: the extra headings. I was doing some tests and forgot I'd transcluded the whole page. I've removed them. About having your name on the invites: you said in the discussion above you'd be okay adding your name to invites "under this proposed arrangement". I guess I took that as an affirmative, but I apologize for presuming. Please let me know if you want your name removed, and I'll take it off ASAP! As for being an "official host"... that doesn't matter to me. I consider any experienced editor who participates (or has participated) in the project in good faith a host, but again I'll remove your name if that's not what you want, or if others object. Cheers, J-Mo 21:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It's fine, Jtmorgan; I just didn't understand where the list of names was located. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. The list is coded into the bot config file, and I update it when people ask to be added/removed. J-Mo 22:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Cheers, Jtmorgan. I understand now. Thanks for your help. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

You can include my name, Jtmorgan. I'm not at the Teahouse as much as I used to be but I still try to drop by a couple times a week. I'm happy to see that most of the questions have already been answered which shows that there are a good number of editors helping out here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Done, Liz! J-Mo 23:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hosts MIA

Does anyone know anything about the whereabouts of TheRedPenOfDoom, GrammarFascist and DESiegel? They are usually prolific here at the Teahouse, but all three haven't edited since December. I feel that the Teahouse is the worse for their absence. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

No idea :( But I hope we see them again. They're great hosts. J-Mo 22:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have been rather busy off-line, but will return as and when I can, probably less frequently for a while, at least. I'm attending an edit-a-thon today. DES ^(talk) 13:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Good to have you back, DES. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there a Badge for "Sufficiently critical that I got my own thread in the Host Lounge"? There probably should be. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I figure the previous barnstars for teahouse work cover it, but thanks. :) DES ^(talk) 18:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

One of your frequent Teahouse responders, User:Happysquirrel, has just received the EotW award for this week. I'm sure many folks here likewise deserve the award. I suggest some visits to her page to congratulate. It's one of those "feel good" things. Buster Seven Talk 16:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Reminder to notify guests of answers

Just a reminder to notify editors when their questions have been answered, either by pinging them as part of the answer (and remembering to sign so that they get a notification) or by using Wikipedia:Teahouse/Teahouse talkback. I've noticed a few hosts failing to do this recently. While it is reasonable to expect editors posing questions to monitor the Teahouse for replies, many of our guests are new to Wikipedia and might not understand how discussion pages work. They might also not expect to receive multiple answers to questions, so once a day or two has passed, it is all the more important to notify them of additional posts. Thanks, and keep up the good work. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2016

Lucy (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Blank request — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

{{ subst:Lucy Idegwu: occasi / badgeometernew}}

Help WMF learn how to support the Wikipedians who support new editors

Hi there fellow hosts,

The Collaboration Team at WMF is interested in working on new features to support editors like you who help newcomers. As part of this project, I've been asked to interview editors who do new-editor support work to learn more about your workflows, the challenges you face, what kinds of tools or features might make your work easier, and to hear about your experiences supporting new editors—at the Teahouse and elsewhere.

If you're interested in taking some time to talk to me about your work, please email me at designresearch@wikimedia.org. This email will go to me, our design research lead Abbey Ripstra, and our research recruiter Samantha Becker. If you are willing to sit down for a ~50 minute interview with me over Google Hangout, WMF can offer you a Wikipedia15 t-shirt as a gesture of appreciation for your time.

Over the next few days, I will also reach out to some highly active hosts individually, via their talkpage or Special:EmailUser.

If you have any questions about this research project, or would like provide informal feedback, you can post it here, on my talkpage, or contact me directly via email (jmorgan@wikimedia.org).

Cheers, J-Mo

Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC) (Posting from my staff account because this research is part of my job)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2016

2A02:2F0E:519F:FFFF:0:0:4F76:57BE (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done empty request Nthep (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2016

Ving rhames (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)my name is vang rhames and i am interest in teahouse i can learn àlot more from teahouse which someone could tell me more about teahouse.rang

Not done: This may not be the place to ask this question. This is to suggest improvements to the host lounge. Please head over to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions and press the button written "Ask a question". Happy editing! MediaKill13 (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2016

Stinghornet12899 (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done as you have not requested a change, but I suspect you are in the wrong place, as this page is only to discuss improvements to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host lounge .
If you want to suggest a change, please request this on the talk page of the relevant article in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2016

Whistle knvfhnvssdyu (talk) 09:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)can i become a host

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2016

i am a Wikipedia user and I'm logged in Why can't I become a host

Whistle knvfhnvssdyu (talk) 09:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Whistle knvfhnvssdyu I suspect it is because your account is so new that you are not even Autoconfirmed yet.
To quote User:Cordless Larry, from the current teahouse page here

"Teahouse hosts are volunteers who regularly answer questions here. This requires some experience of editing Wikipedia and knowing its rules and policies, so I would suggest that you get to know how things work for a year or so before volunteering your services."

It is good that you wish to help, and I don't wish to appear unfriendly, but we have had considerable difficulties with inexperienced editors giving the wrong advice. - Arjayay (talk) 12:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2017

−

Takudzwa Chaita (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC) l need help so that l can come out with great articles

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host lounge. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Were you looking for Wikipedia:Teahouse? Pppery 17:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2017

i am asking to edit this page plz Yahav2003 (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2017

vanisheduser960258 (talk) 11:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — IVORK _Discuss 11:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2017

I would like to make my teahouse host account and I am not currently allowed to do this so I would like to be whitelisted for the source page to do that. ~C.S.~ (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Per talk. Hosts need to be highly experienced; 30/500 is far below threshold needed so request cannot be made until atleast after the user has reached the WP:XCON level. — IVORK _Discuss 06:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Movement Strategy

Hi all. I'd like to invite you to participate in the Wikimedia Movement Strategy discussions, about our movement's overall goals, "What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?". It's currently in the first stage, of broad discussion. There are further details in the related metawiki pages (FAQ, lists of other simultaneous communities' discussions, etc). Your ideas and thoughts as helpers - those familiar with both the established-editor experience, and the new-editor experience - could be especially insightful.

(Also, if you're interested in helping to facilitate and summarize the discussions on Enwiki, and to bring back here the summaries of what the other communities are discussing, over the weeks ahead, please let me know. Thanks. :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2017

I have been invited to teahouse however it states I am unallowed to join. Please fix this. DylanSteed (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to be a guest, not a host, to be a guest, you just need to ask a question on this page. Lil Johnny (talk) (contribs) 00:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

An invitation to participate in the next cycle of Wikimedia movement strategy discussions (underway until June 12)

Hi Teahouse hosts! I wanted to let you know that the Wikimedia movement strategy core team and working groups have completed reviewing the more than 1800 thematic statements we received from the first discussion. They have identified 5 themes that were consistent across all the conversations - each with their own set of sub-themes. These are not the final themes, just an initial working draft of the core concepts.

You are invited to join the discussions taking place on these 5 themes here on Wikipedia (you can also use the Meta Strategy portal to locate and participate in discussions outside of English Wikipedia). This round of discussions will end on June 12th. You can discuss as many themes as you like; we ask you to participate in the ones that are most (or least) important to you.

Here are the five themes and links to their information/discussion pages here on English Wikipedia. Each also has a page on Meta-Wiki (follow the link in the previous paragraph!) with more information about the theme and how to participate in that theme's discussion:

• Healthy, Inclusive Communities
• The Augmented Age
• A Truly Global Movement
• The Most Respected Source of Knowledge
• Engaging in the Knowledge Ecosystem

On the movement strategy portal on Meta-Wiki, you can find more information about each of these themes, see the locations of discussions about them across numerous projects and languages, and learn how to participate.

Thanks for reading, and I hope to see you there! Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2017

Maduagwuifeanyi (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Maduagwuifeanyi, and welcome to the Teahouse Host Lounge! Becoming a Teahouse host generally requires a large amount of experience in the Wikipedia community, which you don't quite have yet. You're welcome to ask questions and participate in discussions in the Teahouse, where experienced users help newer users like yourself get started. If you'd like to introduce yourself to the community, you can create a guest profile or add to your user page. Happy editing! --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 14:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 June 2017

Sidddra 02:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  08:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2017

Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — IVORK _Discuss 01:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Movement Strategy

Hi. I'd like to invite you to Cycle 3 of the Wikimedia Movement Strategy discussions. This cycle is focused on the challenges identified by the research that was conducted in collaboration with experts, current/potential partners, and current/potential readers of the Wikimedia projects. Every week until the end of July, one challenge will be discussed, so if you're not interested in - say - challenge 1, don't forget to have a look on the page later this month.

If you want to ask a question, ping me or read the FAQ. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Pre-production starts for Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons tutorial videos

• 
• 
• 
• 

We are excited that pre-production has started for a series of motivational and educational videos that will introduce Wikipedia and some of its sister projects to new contributors.

Over the past several years, many videos have been produced to train new contributors. This series will feature VisualEditor and the new citation tool called Citoid. Additionally, the series will include an introduction to the Wikimedia Commons repository of freely-licensed media.

The video series and associated materials will help students and instructors who participate in the Wikipedia Education Program. The series is also designed to assist the professional staff and volunteers of galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (GLAMs) with understanding how their content gains exposure on Wikimedia sites, and how to document or upload their content for direct viewing on Wikipedia and its sister projects.

The video content will be available in segments that can be viewed, translated, or updated individually.

There are currently volunteer translators for Arabic, Armenian, Czech, German, Greek, Odia, and Spanish. Additional volunteers with high proficiency translation skills are welcome to sign up on the talk page.

We are currently seeking feedback on the outline for the scripts, as well as suggestions for an attractive name for the series. Please leave any comments on this talk page!

Regards,

Pine^✉

Series director and screenwriter

Notes

This series is funded by an individual engagement grant from the Wikimedia Foundation. A big thanks to the community, the IEG Committee, and WMF for their support. —Preceding undated comment added 04:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2017

Sign my name Larsconks. Larsconks (talk) 08:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Host profile?

I've been answering questions here for a while but only got around to signing up as a host this week. I went through the steps, created my profile and all, but I'm not seeing it on the page. I'm not that concerned about seeing the profile itself, but I do want to make sure I signed up as a host correctly. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I can see you listed at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts, White Arabian Filly. Try searching the page for your username using your browser's find function. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, thanks for your reply. I'm seeing it now. I had to refresh my browser and I had made an error with the image filename which is now fixed. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 August 2017

I wanna be a host Hanan khalid (talk) 09:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Being a Teahouse host requires some knowledge and experience of Wikipedia and its policies, Hanan khalid, which you do not appear to have yet. Once you have that knowledge and experience, please do return here and help out. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

When SineBot isn't around...

...Should we do something about unsigned questions, and if so, what? —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 00:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I try to use Template:Unsigned whenever I spot unsigned comments. Has SineBot been out of action recently, GrammarFascist (I've been rather busy of late, so not following everything at the Teahouse)? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I've seen comments go unsigned for over a day a couple of times recently, Cordless Larry. Not a huge issue, but certainly an annoyance when you're trying to answer someone's question. Thanks for reminding me how to handle such situations. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 18:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Nazim Hussain Pak sockpuppetry

Teahouse regulars might be interested to hear about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nazim Hussain Pak, regarding a frequent guest over the past few months. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Cordless Larry. What a shame that so much enthusiasm was not channeled into more productive endeavors. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 20:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Red Fire, who asked the question at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Single person, has now been blocked as a Nazim Hussain Pak sock too. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Recommending what sections to be added to already existing Wikipedia articles

Hi dear Teahouse hosts. This is Leila from WMF's Research team. We are doing a project where we are building a system which can automatically recommend what sections could be added to an already existing Wikipedia article. The research is described at more length in this meta page. In a nutshell: we're trying to make the work of Wikipedia mentors and editathon organizers less by helping them more easily find what sections should be included in the articles (that they can then use to recommend as templates as part of editathons, for example), but also make the job of finding smaller tasks to do easier for newcomers. I'm looking for experienced editors who can help us assess how well the algorithm is doing and Matanya recommended that I reach out to you all but I don't know what's the best way to reach out to /all/ of you. :) If you are interested to help, please send an email to me using Wikipedia email feature or just message me in my talk page or here and I can send you details (publicly or privately, that's your choice). Thank you very much for your time in any case. --LZia (WMF) (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 October 2017

SHUBHANSHU AGRE (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 11:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 January 2018

HEY GUYS CAN I BE AN ADMIN??????? ThingsThatGo135 (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, ThingsThatGo135. The short answer is no, not yet.

Administrators have lots of special abilities, like the ability to delete inappropriate pages and block people from editing if they misbehave. These abilities can cause major harm if they are misused, so we can't give them to everyone. You'll need to gain a lot of experience, and go through a public nomination process where community members comment on your experience and ask you questions.

It's worth pointing out that many experienced editors never become administrators, and you can do great work without becoming one.

If you have any other questions, please ask them at the Teahouse main page. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 17:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 April 2018

X 12 (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)i would like to become an admin or even a host

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host lounge. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

How does publish my work?

Hii, Today I create My User page WPH Rosogolla. I already crate 2 more wikipedia page, for this topic. But both are not published, because of same Ip address,So that's why I create new One. It's Immediate to publish The Wikipedia User page. That's why I create new one. I know it's duplicate because I already create same page, but both are delete. So please help my , how to solve my problem. WPH Rosogolla (talk) 07:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC) WPH Rosogolla (talk) 07:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You have created several pages, but all included content copied from [3] so have been deleted as copyright violations. They were also somewhat promotional and their promotional nature was a secondary consideration. Nick (talk) 08:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Ya cant understand these admin Luckynagaram (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 May 2018

Y6u7 is a hostabc 09:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC) abc 09:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that you get some more experience editing Wikipedia first, Y6u7. That will leave you better placed to help new editors with their queries. Also, your signature appears to be broken. Presuming that you are correctly signing with four tildes (~~~~), I suggest checking that the "Treat the above as wiki markup" box in the signature section of Special:Preferences is not ticked. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)