Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Host lounge/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Working with hosts and non-hosts who are still "learning the ropes"

Hi everyone! One of the big things weighing on my mind as the WMF hat of mine involved with the Teahouse helps moves the Teahouse to the volunteer side (you guys and gals - and yes, me as a volunteer with you :)): for the past six months it's primarily been me pinging new hosts and non-hosts when they aren't quite doing things the "Teahouse way" (i.e. saying hi, not using jargon or extensive links, being friendly). I send a polite and gentle reminder (With a link to the Teahouse expectations page) to them on their talk page. So what's on my mind: how are the volunteers going to be able to make sure that the Teahouse maintains the mission and integrity of this project (Teahouse project) and gently remind hosts, non-hosts and so forth about "how we roll" here at the Teahouse?

Lately I've just been letting things sort themselves out - Hosts lead by example and do a great job, but I also still see the same non-hosts not being pinged on their talk pages about how they are contributing to the Teahouse, nor are they being informed about being a Host. I also see that new hosts aren't being pinged either when they still aren't familiar with the ropes. Is there a method or a type of system (no, not a bot) that we can develop here that can perhaps have everyone helping out to make sure the Teahouse maintains it's expectations?

Thanks for listening :) Looking forward to your thoughts. SarahStierch (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a host, I'm a Wikipedia editor. I spend a great deal of my time helping new Wikipedia editors. I'm not wholly sure what you mean by technical terms like "pinged" and "hosts", references to "ropes", in-group phrases like "how we(sic) roll", HR phrases like "mission" and "integrity" etc, Newspeak phrases like "not being informed" and "expectations" ;)

Also, no apostrophe in "its" unless you're sure, please. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Howdy, Demiurge1000 and SaraS. Perhaps a tag-team approach? Get a few hosts to volunteer? For Demiurge1000: One of the goals of the Teahouse is to keep things simple for newcomers. Conventional help from experienced Wikipedians is too often just a link to a page that the newest editors find confusing. As Teahouse hosts, we try to greet those asking a question in a friendly way. Just say, "Hi." We try to explain in plain English (but usually add a link to the appropriate page for more information). We try to avoid the jargon that comes naturally after a couple of months of editing but that means little or nothing to the newest of editors and may confuse or intimidate them. SaraS is looking for help from other hosts in reminding (pinging, in Sarah's jargon) those who answer questions in the Teahouse to try to follow those guidelines. Care to join us? Hope you do. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 21:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of jargon avoidance; widespread use of alphabet soup is something that hinders new editors even when the intention is to help them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Also good to be careful when citing essays. benzband (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Please don't forget to do the talkback template

Please for the love of Wiki :) You can learn more about it here:

• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host lounge/User scripts - if you want to install it as a user script (see above too)
• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host_lounge/Templates#Teahouse_talkback - Use a template however you see fit.

It's extremely important. Most new editors have NO CLUE that they need to watch a page, and yes, we can assume everyone will come back here looking for answers, but we can't assume anything because well, this is Wikipedia :) Letting them know you answered their question (in a friendly, polite, "say hi" manner, c'mon folks!) will keep them coming back for more! Danke :) SarahStierch (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm rather worried about a host

OMGuyZ (talk · contribs) has been rather worrying as a host. He's very new, has already run for adminship (the deleted RfA) and has now left this rather curt reply. It seems he's here to seek status and be "cool". What should be done about him? A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 13:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The three main options are as follows:

1. WP:AGF
2. this
3. Discreetly drop some sedatives in his tea to make him calmer.

Which appeals to you most? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Part of it is simple, one day is not long enough to have experience to be a host. (My experience indicates OMG to be a candidate for sock puppetry.) It is okay to remove such a person as a host and request that they return when they are ready. My two cents. heather walls (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no formal RfS (Requests for Sockpuppets) process, so User:OMGuyZ may not be a sockpuppetry candidate, but could equally well be a WP:CLEANSTART account. (Or, judging by their fear of paragraph breaks, could well be a genuine new editor who just happens to move very quickly.)

I feel it's also worth mentioning that OMGuyZ's reply to the new editor's question was actually more helpful than Floating Boat's reply to it, despite the description of it as "not right" (which didn't really add anything). The vast majority of requests at WP:RA never get answered, so if someone wants an article created, WP:AFC is a much better place to start.

Perhaps we should inform OMGuyZ that we are discussing them here? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I occasionally run into editors like this who fit the "I want to be an admin with 10000 edits tomorrow" type personality. The best thing to do is calmly sit down and talk this over with them. I'll notify him that he's being discussed here. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 15:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Another look seems to show that he took the automated Teahouse invite the wrong way and thought it was an invite to become a host. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 15:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Outside observation... I agree. That automated invite can be quite misleading. Especially since it's signed "HostBot". Frankly, I'm surprised more people haven't got the wrong impression about what they were being invited to do. Voceditenore (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Just remove him and politely inform him on his talk page that hosts should be "Experienced" editors (i.e. editing for more than one day - perhaps a few months at the least and have a super strong knowledge of Wikipedia policies). We really do appreciate *anyone* who wants to jump in and help new editors, just some folks might have to be a bit more patient to become a "host," (just like they would to become an online ambassador in the education program). Also, one note: this editor is maybe the fourth in six months that has been a newb/possible sock/whatever that has wanted to become a host. It's a pretty rare thing. SarahStierch (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

•  Done I'm being bold this time (but if it happens again, next time someone else can be bold!) SarahStierch (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

He's been indeffed by DQ. Electric Catfish 23:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't see anywhere /why/ they were blocked, can someone tell me? heather walls (talk) 04:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

He was blocked by a checkuser, presumably because he matched a known sock master via technical and behavioral connections. You could ask DQ directly for more information; I can't find an SPI investigation page or anything. --Jayron32 06:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I feel sorry that I missed this discussion. But I do have something to add: perhaps we should be like Adopt-a-user, which has specific guidelines for becoming adopters. I don't like to exclude anyone, but what if this keeps happening? We could make them lower than Adopt-a-user, like maybe only 200 or 300 edits in the mainspace instead of 500, but we can't let this become a habit. ^{Brambleberry of RiverClan}_meow 21:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I am skeptical that any such system could be implemented without compromising the values of the Teahouse, but I would pay attention to any suggestions. The major question I have is how any such system could keep those editors from answering questions any better than our current system of "be aware of what is going on". The only thing I can see us doing is putting a list of requirements at the top of Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host_start. But I foresee that doing much more harm than good. First of all, how is that going to stop a troll/sock/gloryhog anyway, and more importantly, even if it kept users from adding themselves to the list, that wouldn't keep them from providing counterproductive answers at the Q&A, which is really the issue at hand. In any case, we are going to have to be vigilent no matter what (was that redundant?). Also, I do not think I need to reiterate that the Teahouse is all about friendliness, and a list of requirements at the top of a page may give the wrong impression (even if we are operating on similar requirements in our heads). We may be able to adopt some sort of informal set of guidelines as rules of thumb but not keep them anywhere except in the archive of this page, but in the end the events would play out very similarly to how they have in the past. Any thoughts? hajatvrc @ 01:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a note - I intend to get rid of those adoption criteria when I re-vamp the program... you know, when I've got time. Worm^TT(talk) 08:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Experts on Non-free Images?

Could an expert on non-free images help answer Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Images_.28for_a_start.29? It's the kind of thing I do not want to give false information about. hajatvrc @ 21:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This week

Dear Teahouse hosts,

We've been working on a Teahouse redesign lately and it is almost ready to go! The reorganization is intended to to make the Teahouse experience even more simple and clear to new Wikipedians, based on feedback we've gotten from guests so far. The overall functionality/features/etc should not be impacted, but we want new guests to be able to find you and ask you questions as quickly and easily as possible.

What is changing:

We've removed some of the overly-explanatory text because the Teahouse has grown and created it's own context with a long list of experienced hosts and a fantastic archive of questions to show guests what the point is.

The landing page will have four obvious sections and fewer links to reduce confusion with the interaction. We want to welcome newcomers as well as introduce the 3 areas of the Teahouse with three major links:

Welcome to the Teahouse: A friendly place to help new editors become accustomed to community culture, ask questions, and develop community relationships.

Do you have a question about editing? Get answers

Hosts are here to help

Guests create a profile

The color palette is also changing slightly, with a little more contrast. So don't be alarmed if you start to see changes happen over the next few days. Looking forward to your feedback as we start to move things around. If you have a great idea for making something more clear to new guests, please let me know!

heather walls (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user overhaul

Hi fellow hosts! I just wanted to plug my pet project, WP:Adopt-a-user. It's had a bit of an overhaul by Yunshui and myself, largely based on the excellent work I've seen here at the teahouse. It's still a one to one tuition (unlike the teahouse's many to many) as many users do find this useful. If you have a little time and feel interested, why not sign up? Also, if you see any users at the teahouse who you think would benefit from adoption - please do feel free to mention it as an option. I'd personally recommend that it could be suggested to those users who've asked more than say, 3 questions in say, 1 week, might benefit from a single point of contact - but as always, it's totally down to the hosts thoughts on the matter. Worm^TT(talk) 09:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Layout updates

FYI, we've got a thread going on Teahouse_talk. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 01:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Links in questions

Ok, I know we're dealing mostly with newcomers here but is there a way in the Ask a question box they can be educated to link to articles in question using wikilinks rather than urls? I'm seeing this a lot in people referred here from AFC and rather than have to explain it in the answer I was wondering if there is any way of "heading it off at the pass"? NtheP (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a fine suggestion. We could definitely add some ghost text into the form, prompting users to use wikilinks. That's not instruction cruft; it's just good guidance.

It shouldn't be hard to implement, either. The gadget code is here if someone with basic Javascript skills wants to take a whack at implementing these changes, all they need to do is copy the code, make the desired changes, and then install it as a personal userscript to assure that it's bug-free. That's basically what Equacion did with to create the Teahouse Response Gadget.

Once someone makes these updates and we've confirmed they're solid, I commit to harassing someone with the necessary user rights to update the gadget itself. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this should be implemented. (Previous related discussion). -- Trevj (talk) 10:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Considering the new format, how about an editnotice at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions? Something incorporating text along the lines of Links to specific articles/pages can be made using square brackets, i.e. [[article/page title]]. would be helpful -- Trevj (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed a new host... (User:Hibye321‎)

...based on their edit history (Hibye321‎ (talk · contribs)), which was fairly brief and began to show some evidence of, at best, not communicating with other editors, and at worst edit warring. Of course, I did welcome them to come ask questions here as they needed to. Because of our previous concerns about new hosts I've been trying to vigilant about new hosts and appropriate host conduct here. However, I did want other hosts' feedback on whether this seemed like an appropriate course of action. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Good call Jethrobot! I think it was the right call, and pinging them on their talk page about it was too! SarahStierch (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit count requirement?

Hi everyone. I've noticed we've been getting a few folks who don't quite have Wikipedia editing experience wanting to become hosts or lend a hand at the Teahouse. I think that it's great that new editors want to help each other - that's one of the points of the Teahouse, many to many support, but, Host wise we want experienced hosts that know a lot about policy, procedure and process. My fear, when an editor has a very low edit count (say under 600) who wants to be host, might not have that experience level. What do you think, in the new host process (the first page where you sign your name) we put an edit requirement. Thoughts? And if so, what edit count would that be - it might make it easier for us then having to explain to the uber new editors (or socks) who add themselves as host - we can just simply point to that. Thoughts? SarahStierch (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably a good idea; some kind of hard criterion is inevitable, I think. Although I don't like the possibility that it will encourage hat collecting, it's probably better to have it than not. My go-to requirement would be 1000, but I think that might be a bit steep, so maybe the 700-800 range? Certainly no less than 500. I wouldn't want to make it too high. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I would support a trial run. This is the second time in a week that we have had his problem (if you count our newest addition), and I feel we need to try something. As Writ said, I am also worried that it might become some sort of "status" issue, but unfortunately we do not have a crystal ball. I think the 700-800 range is a good starting point. hajatvrc @ 20:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I am going to throw in another thought for consideration although I am not against having an edit limit (depending on what it is I might have to de-host myself ;)). We are developing a "check-in" system for hosts, where inactive ones (in some stretch of time like, 2 weeks) will be moved to the breakroom until they use the simple check-in system to make themselves active again. It could be that new excited editors will make themselves hosts but forget about the whole thing and fade away (or be blocked). We could deal with disruptive behavior or inappropriate introductions the same way we would now, by talking to them/removing them. This might also feel like too much of a need to be vigilant for hosts, I have no idea. The Teahouse Maitre d' role (being discussed now) might play an active part in that. heather walls (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Given our visibility, some limits on who can be a host seems like a prudent way to avoid vandalism and other mischief. Ebikeguy (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I am always of the opinion that cultural shifts (such as higher vigilance) are more effective than policy shifts (such as edit count requirements), but that policy shifts are often necessary as temporary fixes while a cultural shift is taking place. While I think that we should try a policy shift at this point, I would love to see this disappear in the future when it is (ideally) no longer needed. hajatvrc @ 00:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I agree with Hajatvrc that it's better to use norms + vigilance than hard rules in cases like this. Excluding people from being hosts because they don't have enough edits is problematic to me for two specific reasons: first, we can't (and shouldn't) keep people from answering questions, inviting people, welcoming people etc, so excluding them from creating a host profile seems both elitist and a bit arbitrary to me. Second, any edit requirement is going to be pretty subjective and hard to justify unless we make it very, very low: like restricting host-hood to autoconfirmed users only. We will have a system in place that moves our profiles between the Host_landing/Host_breakroom/Featured pages based on how recently active we are. That script could also move or remove host profiles if editors are indef blocked. I should finally have at least the bones of this system working by the end of this week... promise :) Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so when are other people going to step up so it's not Heather and I nagging people who aren't...uh...good hosts? :P SarahStierch (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Excellent point, Sarah. Does anyone else want to play the 'bad guy/gal' for a while? I'll give you a barnstar... :) This ties back into my broader question, too: Does anyone else feel comfortable telling other editors that we want them to act a certain way when they interact with newcomers at the Teahouse? It's equally applicable whether the editor in question is a newcomers or a veteran... tho it's probably less socially awkward to approach newcomers with this kind of message. I've always seen doing this as a necessary quality control mechanism: we provide a certain kind of service, and at the heart of that is our commitment to being supportive/attentive/sympathetic towards all sorts of new editors. If someone is going through the motions (answering questions) but not being friendly about it, or just throwing around a lot of jargon and policy links, or not following up with talkback messages and responses to subsequent requests... how do we ask them to do it differently and who is going to do the asking? Besides Sarah and Heather, who have been in the hall monitor role for way too long, IMO. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

In Hunger Games style, I volunteer as tribute. Also, it's a good exercise for many other kinds of interactions here on Wikipedia. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

May the odds be ever in your favor. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Edit count is a bad measure - I've been saying this to other projects too, recently. As Jmorgan points out, edit count doesn't appropriately measure an editors experience. I've known editors with 100 edits who would make excellent hosts and editors with 100,000 who wouldn't. As an idea, how about a "role play" test for new hosts? Give them a situation or two, see how they say they'd handle it - allow discussion and a suggestion that they come back in a few months. Worm^TT(talk) 07:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support This roleplay idea sounds cool. I really would like a few tests. Jawshewah (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - While I agree with Worm that edit count is a poor measure of suitability in itself editors with less than a few hundred edits are unlikely to adequately understand systems and policies. Unless they are sockpuppets that is. We need some level of protection from raw beginners blundering in to "help". Those with the right kind of temperament to become hosts will understand why they have to wait a little while.--Charles (talk) 08:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - I also am not exactly favoring a sheer edit count threshold here...but it's mostly because I'm not sure of any other metric that can do a better of job of gauging preparedness to be a host. This isn't a great reason, I admit. Having vigilance and taking the time to know an editor's reputation are effective, but they also take a lot of time that we don't have, and so we will not be able to use to cover all new editors in a systematic way. I actually like the idea that WormTT brought up-- that they role play as a host faced with a few questions. For instance, I think some of these questions from the user adoption program on a number of basic policy topics would be appropriate. I also like the idea of a check-in system for hosts that Jmorgan has discussed above, though I don't think that will lighten the load of keeping potentially unprepared editors from acting as hosts. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 10:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - i'm not a part of the teahouse but i do want it to succeed, and that's exactly why i can't support this measure. An edit count is not a measure of wiki-intelligence, it is just an edit counter. It is quite likely the people with low edit counts could have been deterred from editing because of the rules they have encountered more times than the people making many minor or uncontroversial edits. Test them or get their opinions as Worm says. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I understand Sarah's concern, but I think we can help prevent problems using friendly social pressure rather than written rules. If a noob isn't following the ethos of the Teahouse, or if a very inexperienced editor is answering questions wrongly, a nice, handwritten note a) thanking them for their help b) explaining the point of the Teahouse and what hosts do and why they need to be experienced and c) to ask them to come back later once they've learned more about Wikipedia and how it works. The big problem with edit counts is that we have many very experienced editors who contribute without a user account or a static IP address: we can use those people's expertise as much as anyone with an established account, but a hard edit-count limit would exclude them. It's better just to judge on performance, and be friendly in saying "thanks but no thanks and come back later" to people who arent' working up to standard. --Jayron32 14:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

What about an adminship-like vote for approval as a host? That should please both camps here and ensure only people with the relevant know-how (which you can set at a later date) get approved as hosts. What do you think? It also avoids the unpleasantness of ignoring people just under the required count so they go and make trivial edits and ensures people with histories of only minor edits spread over years aren't approved. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Not a bad idea on paper, but the only thing I really liked about the edit count thing was that it wouldn't require too much bureaucratic baggage. To be honest, I'd prefer no limits at all to anything even remotely resembling an RfA (and really, the opposes above are quickly starting to convince me against even the edit-count requirement). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Have you been to RFA lately? Do you want people to be hosts here? Because if someone had to run that diarrhea gauntlet just to get the right to be helpful to new users, no one would do it. No, people should be allowed to be useful until such time as they have proven themselves not to be. See my note above: we regulate this desk using proper social methods, not by rules. And certainly not by making this like RFA. --Jayron32 15:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to clarify that that was an example, i have no intention of suggesting making this like RFA, just a similarish process where people are in unless there is an objection from someone (like if they're too new or don't understand the processes for what they're requesting). Otherwise your criteria will be non-existent, counting edits, or hat based. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I still think it is a bad idea to introduce any constructed barrier or threshold to contributing here as a "host". It can always be handled as I suggested: saying "thanks but no thanks" in a proper manner will do just fine in making sure that new users receive knowledgeable answers from the right people, but any pre-approval process would, I believe, unneccessarily restrict the situation and discourage people from helping out. --Jayron32 16:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Just checking that you do realise the irony in you supporting a made up secret barrier that is different depending on the editor and not made clear, but don't support a process of allowing people in with little support or rejecting them if they have no support? (As that's the opinion your last post gives) Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I completely disagree with that analysis. He never implied any secret barriers, he implied the absence of any concrete, quantifiable barrier (which would include both an edit count and a standardized Request for Hostship process) so that we can use practical judgment on a case-by-case basis. This differs from the amorphous barrier that you have identified because there are no changing criteria. The criteria are always the same: be knowledgeable, be helpful, and be kind. One may argue that a more concrete process, such as the one you are proposing, would give a more practical stage for qualitative analysis. But it would not; it would only make us out to be an elitist, condescending group of Wikipedians with quantified requirements. Nothing is more practical than saying "Hey, that guy is being a dick, let's get rid of him." hajatvrc @ 09:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

So letting people in with support for them to join is "elitist" but judging on a "case-by-case" basis isn't? It's the same thing??? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is not the same thing. You are proposing a formal process. The formal process is what would portray us as elitist. It is a visible construct that people will associate with the Teahouse. You only focus on the "support" that hosts may show, but, pragmatically, good things would never be the focus of such conversations. The difference between that and what I am pointing out is that currently we only have conversations when there is an actual problem. Not long ago we had a discussion on this page (in the archive) where the OP brought up concern that a new host was not being very kind to the guests. That host was promptly removed from the list and we moved on. Minimal visibility, no unnecessary disruption. It is much better when people are allowed to add themselves to the list, and we deal with problems that arise if they do. hajatvrc @ 15:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse and Article Review

It seems that a lot of editors are using the Teahouse to have their AfC submission(s) reviewed. While I think it's great that The Teahouse can be a place for editors to get that help, can I poll the hosts and ask whether they think this is something we want to encourage and see more of in the Q&A section? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Eh, it is what it is. I'm not super-thrilled about it, but hey, it's something we can help people with, so why not? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

As Writ says, we are where we are. If helping new editors to get a faster than otherwise review of their AFC drafts retains their interest then we need to do it. It's not my favourite activity but if they've got the get up and go to come to t'Teahouse then there is a keenness we shouldn't stifle. NtheP (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It's always been the case on IRC too. Basically, we're here to help, and that's what people want help with. Worm^TT(talk) 09:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• What everyone else has said. Part of the problem is that there is a strong documentation tie-in between AFC and The Teahouse. I don't disagree with this, but if you want to know why the phenomenon happens its because users, when they learn about AFC, also learn about the Teahouse at the same time (and visa-versa). The problem could likely be ameliorated by making The Teahouse more prominent in other ways, so that we'd get a wider variety of questions from new users. Though to be fair a) a large proportion of new users create articles as soon as they get here and b) creating a new article is literally the hardest thing a user of any sort could every do at Wikipedia. So, we can expect that new users are going to be asking these sort of questions a lot anyways, if only because we have an odd conjunction between the people least prepared to create new articles are creating them in the greatest number. They need lots of hand holding because it is so hard to do. --Jayron32 15:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't discourage it - we want to keep editors (particularly those who ask questions and are willing to learn how Wikipedia works). Regarding a large proportion of new users create articles as soon as they get here, I think the WP:PROMO-type contributors should not be given more than their fair share of attention: we're interested in editors contributing in many ways. Don't a large proportion of editors also start with typos and small changes? They should be encouraged to come to the Teahouse too, for discussion of what else they might feel like moving on to. -- Trevj (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

No, unfortunately the "I will start out by fixing typos" people make up less than 10% of new editors. If you exclude vandals and edit-testers, around 90% of new editors come to Wikipedia for the purpose of creating an article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for clarifying. -- Trevj (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

That is very interesting and something that I would not have expected. Has there been research done on this or were you just speaking from experience? hajatvrc @ 15:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

From experience, sadly. There's probably research too, but I don't know where it is :)

Another nuggest of anecdotal experience is that the other significant groups of help-seeking editors, trailing well behind those who want to create new articles (with whom I would include those seeking to prevent newly created articles being deleted), are: those who want to upload an image; those who have a WP:BLP concern of some sort; those who have a content or behavioural dispute of some other sort. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Maitre'd position

Hi everyone. We've started our draft for the maitre'd position, which was discussed in our pilot 2 proposal. You can take a look and chime in on the talk page, please: meta:Research:Teahouse/Maitre d' role. Thanks :) SarahStierch (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

All you Sarah. I nominate Sarah! She already does this quite well. Seriously, keep up the good work, you do this so well, I wouldn't dream of replacing you. --Jayron32 22:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Because the point is totally not to disseminate some of the responsibility to others... =D hajatvrc @ 23:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

We all know that that leaving everything on Sarah's shoulders would not be a responsible or sustainable solution even in the short term, and I know that people expressed interest in the past. heather walls (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

So, no one has any thoughts? I haven't seen any comments on the talk page on meta.... remember folks, silence can mean acceptance in some capacities, so speak now or forever...blahblahblah :) SarahStierch (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Sarah. We accept you as the "Maitre d'" (though, I think technically you'd be a "maîtresse d'" ) --Jayron32 22:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the point of this exercise is that Sarah might, ya know, want to go live her off-wiki life sometimes too. Relying on one person to do something forever isn't always the best way to sustain things, as much as we all love Sarah. Siko (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I know that. But it is fun to bust her chops. --Jayron32 03:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, this is a nifty idea. Does anyone object to my inserting the proper î in "maître" all over the place?  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 01:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ha ha, go for it :) SarahStierch (talk) 02:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Done, moved the page even.  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 00:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Just commented there, but it seems like most of the commentary goes here. I'm definitely all for the idea, and interested in the position. But, I'll be fairly busy off-Wiki until Novemeber. Would I be able to start then? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not see why we need the role. Each already existing member can do each of the things listed, and we do not need a "head" of the Teahouse. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 10:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

From my understanding, it's not about having a "head" person, but more about having a kind of rota system whereby those who are willing to volunteer a bit more time to this stuff can share the workload by taking it in turns. -- Trevj (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Would this be similar to the Coordinator positions at Milhist? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, basically. It comes down to sort of what Siko said: I've been doing a good portion of this stuff since day one, which is okay, because as a Fellow and as the "co-creator" of this project, it makes sense. However, I want to go back to being a volunteer, and I will be, very soon (as my fellowship ends) and I am getting burnt out doing things like making sure people answering questions are being friendly and reminding them, welcoming new guests, etc. Having someone to step up and coordinate for a time being is ideal. I think if we can support a variety of people throughout the existence of the Teahouse - it's not only a great way to learn some community organizing skills, but, you also learn to be more bold, and have the pride in making sure that the Teahouse is running smoothly. We can say "oh hosts are stepping up to that," well, I wish I could say completely yes, but, I can't, yet. (a select few have stepped up, but it's occasional and not as frequent as I find myself doing things). SarahStierch (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Maître'd passes the duck test for Coordinator. I added a bit to the discussion over at meta. I would need a short "how to" on "monitor monthly activity metrics (invites, Q&A, hosts, etc) to make sure systems are working well." Or perhaps a separate kitchen staff to keep up with stat's? Other ideas? DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 15:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

What if we put how-to info like this into a Maître'd guide that we keep in the host lounge? Anyone willing to start drafting that page by putting in questions on what kinds of things new Maître'ds might need to know to get started? I also like the idea of a signup calendar rather than a list, to accomodate the scheduling issues that interested people have raised on meta. Siko (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Where'd our IRC bot go?

I've noticed that JBot-RC is absent from #wikipedia-teahouse of late. Anyone know where it went, or how to get it back? Despite the nominal similarity between the bot's nickname and mine, it's not my bot. But do I miss it so! Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who runs that, but it seems to be on and off as of late. I think Heather knows who runs it... --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 15:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Cool new stuff!

Sorry about my absence as of late, I have been very busy IRL and most of my time editing has been spent perfecting WP:AFCH. I came across Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host lounge/How-to guides/Image guide. This looked like a great idea, considering that I'm asked this at least once a day. I've updated it to fill out the current sections, and hopefully it will become the defacto guide and save us from typing out the same reply twelve times a day. Take a look! --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 15:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for filling so much of this in. Just a tiny reminder to everyone to please copy and paste portions into your answer (at least at the Teahouse) and not just give them a link. :) heather walls (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! It might need just a tad of reorganization, but I think it will be useful. I'll take a look at the rest of the pages under this system when I get some time and try to improve them as well. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 16:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Topicon

Teahouse topicon is now available for all hosts who feel the need for pseudo-decoration ;) Osarius - Want a chat? 16:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Maitre d' review

Hi everyone! Ok, we've got the page up for the maitre d'. Please take a look here: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host lounge/Maitre d. Any concerns, etc. please share. Also, if we have anything we're missing, feel free to add or discuss it. And of course - be bold and sigh up on the calendar :) Once we all take a look and so forth then I'll ping everyone formally about it. Can't wait to have you all involved!! SarahStierch (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

While unfortunately I don't have time to help ATM, I've added the calendar to the navbox so hosts can quickly check the rota. -- Trevj (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks, Trevj heather walls (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Like. --Jayron32 18:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

HostBot is down due to database woes

Hi y'all. Just FYI, the database the HostBot runs on has been down for a few days, and likely won't be back online until mid-week next week. This means that automated invites aren't being sent out, the invitee report isn't being updated, and other automated services like guest profile archiving, recent questions updates, featured host updates... all are down for the count. So I expect that we'll see fewer guests over the next week (although I'd love to be wrong). If you run across new editors in the course of your day, or see anyone in need of help at the new editor contribs filteror the feedback dashboard, AfC , etc don't hesitate to invite them! Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Will do! I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The invitations are flowing once more! Dead server swapped out for newer, beefier server. Other automation to come online in the next 24 hours or so. Viva technology! Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Huzzah! So glad! Thanks, Jmorgan :) heather walls (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Things be praised! I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Early phase 2 results: guest satisfaction and quality of answers has declined a bit since pilot

Hi everyone!

We're slogging through the results of our second survey which will be a part of the phase 2 report. Our metric report is not complete, but we do have some preliminary results. While most of the results are really really positive, we've had two things change that have concerned us. We sent out basically the same survey as we did during the pilot phase to new editors who visited the Teahouse during phase 2. During the pilot, 51% of respondents said they were "very satisfied" with the responses they were receiving. That has now declined by 10% to 41%, we also had people in this new survey state they were disappointed, unlike the first survey where the response was 0. Preliminary data is here.

One response complained that the answer provided to them was focused around simply linking to guidelines and policies. This is one of the main tenets of the Teahouse - we don't do that - we explain, in simple English, what policies and guidelines are, and we don't just merely link to them. I have noticed this happening more than ever, too. We also had one person say that the response they got was "condescending." While most of the time we appear to do a great job at replying, we have to really remember what the expectations are for the Teahouse:

1. Welcome everyone with a friendly hello when you answer questions or greet new guests.
2. Be polite and patient with all editors who visit the Teahouse.
3. Keep it simple. Explain as much as possible, as simply as possible, to new editors when answering questions. (Don't use wiki jargon!)
4. Avoid over-linking when responding to questions. Wikipedia policies, procedures, and documentation are overwhelming to many editors. Do your best to explain processes and policies and answer the guest's particular question rather than pointing them to more documentation as a first resort.
5. Leave a talkback notification on the guest's userpage after answering a new question, to let the guest know you responded. (Find the script here!)

Now that we have the new Maitre d' roles, hopefully people will feel confident enough to step up and remind one another, and those answering questions, of our expectations and the importance of following them.

It's important for us to reflect about why our "customer service" has declined a little bit since the pilot and I think it's important that we make an eager effort to keep everyone involved with the Teahouse - hosts, guests, and drop ins - informed about what makes us different than other help spaces - and successful. Remember, every new editor who we respond to in the Q&A forum and greet on their talk page is important to making Wikipedia the amazing free knowledge source it is.

Do do you think the Maitre d' position is one option? Are there other things we - as hosts and Teahousers - can be doing to improve our responses?

Thank you for all you do, and I can't wait for our phase two report to be out so you can see the impact that your work is having! SarahStierch (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes I think I had noticed this slight change in response tone. But I also think I have seen a change in the spectrum of people using Teahouse, and indeed one or two attempts to misuse it. My greatest concern out of Teahouse work, though, is that the new article creation process is broken. Perfectly good starter articles seem to get held up in the works - the idea behind the new articles process is to avoid people becoming discouraged from contributing (in the old case by putting a lot of effort into an article and then having it deleted), and it seems it is failing in that.

Rich Farmbrough, 00:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC).

I'm going to second Rich Farmbrough on his assessment of the AFC problems. From what I can see from questions asked here at the Teahouse is that, while most articles declined at AFC probably needed to be (major notability concerns, etc.) enough of them are declined for what I consider to be spurious reasons: problems with tone, stylistic issues, etc. It is very frustrating for someone to ask "Why has my AFC been declined three times" and to have to try to help them without saying "I have no idea. It shouldn't have been from what I can see". I really hate saying that, because it looks like we're inconsistent: except that in one out of every ten or so declined AFCs, that's what I am thinking. AFC shouldn't decline an article which wouldn't be deleted if it appeared in the main space. It should be helping users work through issues of notability, referencing, and copyright violations, the big stuff that usually gets an article deleted. Otherwise, I have a hard time working with users here when I find a rather unfriendly attitude is taken by some AFC patrollers. It is no wonder why a users arrives here in a surly mood. I'm not sure what else to do about this, except for us to pitch in with AFC problems when they appear here, and to do so with the Teahouse ethic. I want to make clear that most articles that are declined should have been declined; but those that aren't done right reflects badly on Wikipedia as a whole, so we should try to be more helpful with new users. Not every new user is a spammer here to promoter their small business or garage band. Some of them are genuinely interested in becoming part of the Wikipedia community, and we need to work harder on helping them along. </rant> --Jayron32 01:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, I at one time I was participating a lot at AfC and was noticing on the Reviewer's Talk that there were many questions of reviewer competency (though I would choose nicer words). By our nature we are closely entwined with AfC, and I feel that sometimes hosts may get a little tired of answering AfC-related questions. It is certainly more work than answering other questions. I notice that many times the AfC-related ones go unanswered for much longer than your average "how do I upload a picture" questions. This could be related to the guest frustration we are seeing more and more. hajatvrc @ 01:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The decline in "very satisfied" respondents is noted, and one reason this might have occurred is in terse other responses that cause a chilling effect on users. I think another factor to bear in mind, though one that is no easier to deny or confirm than poor responses from hosts, would be that there are some visitors to The Teahouse who are invited after they have vandalized or have edited in conflict with Wikipedia policy, even after being warned. I believe at least some nontrivial proportion of these editors are not here to help build an encyclopedia, and will most likely be disappointed in our feedback because they didn't get what they wanted to hear from us. I think we should continue to invite people who may have gotten off to a rough start, because many of them can be helped, but we should also bear in mind that some people carry that wrong ideas about what Wikipedia is about, which has nothing to do with the quality of our responses. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

That's true, but I'm not sure we can attribute the decline to that; we had some problem editors in the first phase of the pilot, too. I think the Maitre d' position will help a lot; I really like the idea of signing up on the calendar (it'll make it easy to volunteer, while dispelling any illusion of "authority" or "status" that might be problematic). I'll sign up for it myself, once I've written a script or something that will remind me when my shift comes up (might need HostBot to do that; note to self: talk to J-Mo). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I see the number of respondants has also increased by nearly 70%, implying that the Teahouse is getting a lot more questions. As the focus becomes broader, satisfaction rating is likely to go down. I agree with re-stating our goals and pushing the Maitre d' position, which should give confidence to the user to help guide hosts, but I personally don't believe the stats are anything to worry about. 80% of people are still satisfied or very satisfied, we can improve on that but it's hardly a bad score, considering the level of monitering has reduced. I'd rather focus on saying Well done everybody Worm^TT(talk) 04:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

As one of the 2 or 3 major participants for a couple of years already at one help desk where much of our work is now referring people to the right forum, I welcomed the Tea House initiative, but unfortunately I haven't joined as a host because I don't think my participation would be sufficiently regular. I've watched closely from the sidelines however, and do indeed concur with others that it's doing an excellent job. It says 'Experienced editor? Become a host...' While I dislike too much bureaucracy and instruction creep, I do feel that perhaps some minimum recommended guidelines for experience may be appropriate. This is however a much bigger problem at AfC and NPP, and it would be nice if the Foundation could spend some time developing the new, new-user landing page that was promised over a year ago.

Teahouse Hosts. Extended data - sortable table.

Data as of 18 Oct 2012, approx 14:30 (UTC+6). user admin first WP edit mainspace edits automated edits Teahouse edits Notes Adam mugliston 20 Aug 2008 2265 211 27 Bilby 27 Mar 2007 10337 608 107 Brambleberry of RiverClan 25 Dec 2007 757 17 15 Charlesdrakew 21 Jan 2007 16317 12909 196 user:Clarkcj12 11 Sep 2009 3893 1978 0 Dalahäst May 19 2006 958 1212 40 Doctree 2 Mar 2012 354 66 72 Ducknish 27 Mar 2012 2769 4778 2 Ebe123 6 Feb 2010 3059 3113 6 Ebikeguy 21 Nov 2006 1179 579 24 Electriccatfish2 1 Apr 2011 4800 7535 6 Retired Floating Boat 3 Sep 2011 621 915 49 FourDimensionalHyperSphere 28 Sep 2012 23 0 0 Foxj Admin 5 Aug 2007 8686 2472 0 Garamond Lethe 9 Mar 2012 349 18 76 Go Phightins! 6 Feb 2011 1286 1646 27 GorillaWarfare Admin 28 Jul 2008 8814 12524 1 Gtwfan52 3 Mar 2012 2918 2076 68 Gwickwire 28 Oct 2011 315 627 20 Hajatvrc 1 Dec 2009 4000 5374 101 Heatherawalls 24 Dec 2011 769 245 335 I Jethrobot 13 Aug 2006 1470 1653 60 Jayron32 Admin 16 Jun 2006 9426 11 140 Jethro B 16 Mar 2012 3721 1053 14 Jtmorgan 17 Sep 2008 193 17 40 Keilana Admin 29 Apr 2007 20962 10416 35 LuK3 7 Jun 2008 5791 8871 80 Nthep 8 Jul 2006 5671 4827 411 Osarius 21 Feb 2008 2182 3081 0 Peter.C 1 Nov 2007 2480 2553 0 Rcsprinter123 13 Jun 2010 14887 7107 29 Rich Farmbrough 117 ToolServer unable to parse Riley Huntley 21 Jan 2012 7076 5625 11 Rosiestep Admin 4 Jun 2007 46143 7487 31 Theopolisme 10 Mar 2011 5719 7820 21 Trevj 22 Sep 2004 4146 187 112 Worm That Turned Admin 13 Jul 2008 3385 979 67 Writ Keeper 29 Sep 2011 1145 4438 331 Yunshui Admin 17 Aug 2009 5827 5708 31

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

ToolServer unable to parse Rich Farmbrough, 01:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC).

Algorithms are unable to read my user page...SUCCESS! Now I know how to fight the machines. hajatvrc @ 04:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

What algorithms? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

So...do we need to manually count our Teahouse edits? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. Do you think it's necessary? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Nah, not really. I mean, I guess it would have been vaguely interesting, but it's no matter to me either way. Still, was it supposed to count them somehow? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding that the table was created by a bot or a script. The extra columns were simply added in case it might be useful. The Host edit count is completely unpopulated. If the entire sortable table is of no use , then it can be ignored, but it appears to reveal that some hosts may be relatively new themselves. However, the table does not take into account the quality of anyone's work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right that the word "toolserver" in the table may have caused the misunderstanding that the entire table was created by a program. As far as inexperience goes, there only appears to be one user listed as a host (User:FourDimensionalHyperSphere) that may have confused "host" with "guest" as they checked in at the host landing the day they received their invitation to be a guest and have not really participated since. The others with few mainspace edits have shown to be good hosts (as far as I know). Generally, I think most of us agree with you that bureaucracy and instruction creep would be counter-productive here, so we usually only remove a host if they cause a problem.

Of course, now we have an issue on the table that maybe the answers have become less helpful, so maybe inexperience will be a concern for the maîtres d'. hajatvrc @ 07:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I've added the number of automated edits to the table, which may be of some interest. However, because not all automated edits are made in article space, it does look a bit strange in some cases. -- Trevj (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

They are hard to analyse. Not that it's all that important, but do we know of a simple way to count Teahouse edits without doing it manually? I think it would make the table more useful because we could compare mainspace edits to Teahouse edits. hajatvrc @ 12:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, auto edits are hard to analyse because Twinkle, for example, can log up to 3 (or even more) logged edits from just one operation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC).

I don't know what to attribute the dip in satisfaction to, but I suspect that one contributing factor is burnout from having to answer the same kind of questions over and over again, and maybe also an increase in participation by drop-in hosts (not sayin' drop-ins are bad, but they probably have less invested in lengthly answers and multiple follow-ups). Then again, as long as there are answers like this happening, I think we're in pretty good shape. BTW, if you want total TH edits per host, I can run that real quick :) What's this table for, again? Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Best question title ever

Ok, so it's probably my English sense of humour (c.f. Carry On (film series)) but seeing the title My Twinkle is not working really made me laugh. NtheP (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• My inner 8-year old also giggled. :) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I just now realized this. -_- immaturity for the win. gwickwire | Leave a message 01:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Forget inner 8-year-olds! Eldest recently made me aware that this really doesn't wear off until after age 12. (And, on the right topics, probably not at age 13 either, but not got that far yet.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)