Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
A-101: 1 April 2007 - 10 April 2007
A-102: 10 April 2007 - 2007


Contents

[edit] Some ideas

Can we not work with WP:AMA? They don't seem to like working with anyone else unless they are the dominant partner. Let them sink into the ground and run this place like a complex version of the help desk. It seems to me that WP:ASSIST fits neatly onto our dispute resolution ladder:

  1. General inquiries - Help Desk
  2. More specific and detailed inquiries, possibly about users. - WP:ASSIST
  3. Request for community input about a user. - RfC
  4. Informal mediation between two users - Medcab
  5. Formal, more serious mediation - Medcom
  6. Formal mediation with binding consequence - CEM
  7. Intervention with binding resolution - ArbCom

I note that someone on the requests page has said that they have answered a query but left it up in case anyone else wants to reply. It might be beneficial to create an "Answered Requests" section for thier purpose, so that other users can check what advice a user has been given and possibly supplement or correct it. As everyone who has had dealings with WP:AMA knows, just trusting editors to tell inquirers the right things can sometimes be disastrous. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since it seems there are some that prefer to talk directly on the request page, I was thinking we probably should archive requests from there rather than straight removal. Would be easy enough to create an archive page. As to AMA, they really have done some good in addition to what's been wrong, I really hope the house can be gotten in order there. I have nothing against AMA, and I don't in the slightest intend this to kill them off, I hope that everyone can work cooperatively. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Dev920: It's just one particular AMA member who is acting that way, mind you. :-) --Kim Bruning 21:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I am open to the idea of reuniting the two organisations, but it has to be done gradually and through consensus; CyclePat went about it completely the wrong way, with the upshot that resentment between the two groups has actually increased. The other problem is that some members of WP:ASSIST have expressed anti-AMA sentiments, so moving back into the AMA might force them to leave. Walton Vivat Regina! 15:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for narrative.

Could someone please explain the story with AMA, and the recently observed commotion? It seems that EA is a reaction to some sort of turf battle. I would appreciate some context. Thanks! --Aarktica 18:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure! Actually, I started this project during the MfD for AMA, as it looked pretty clear at that point that AMA was going to be deleted or disbanded. (That came very close to happening as it was). If that would have been the case, this project would still provide somewhere for editors that want help and advice to turn, and is also an attempt to address the concerns that the community raised about AMA during the discussion. However, even given that AMA survived the MfD, there is no guarantee that their cleanup and reorganization will succeed enough to prevent a second successful one. However, even if it does (and I hope it does!) I think this process can provide a useful function.
The "turf battle" was started when it was suggested that this program be merged into AMA as a team. The requested move that was placed had already received ten opposes and no supports by the time it was closed, as well as additional opposition from those who didn't technically "vote", so that matter's pretty well closed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Does this mean that the AMA may implode? If so, is the EA equipped to assume responsibilities that come about as a result of that action? --Aarktica 21:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Is MfD short for Miscellany for deletion? --Aarktica 21:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, MfD is. A shortcut to that page is WP:MFD. About EA, my vision and, I'm guessing others' too, is that EA (I still think of Esperanza when I see that acronym) is not intending to assume the responsibilities AMA holds. We tend to be much more informal and want to help user's out wherever is best for them. No "have you read the EA guidelines"- or "what did you think of your interaction"-type questionnaires. At least, that's my hope. --Iamunknown 21:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Could you please provide details on this MfD? What brought it about? More importantly, in what ways is EA an improvement? Is there a "cost" to the existence of EA? --Aarktica 22:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The relevant Wikipedia Signpost article may do a better job explaining than I can. You can read it at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-04-02/AMA nominated for deletion. I imagine that EA is an improvement because it is less bureaucratic. That, however, is a product of my personal bias towards bureaucracy, rules and the like. I think that others regard EA similarly. I don't think that there is a cost to EA. Though I commented to the effect at the MfD that the AMA should be marked with {{historical}}, {{rejected}} (or a custom tag), I am not actively opposed against its continued existence. I personally do not think that the "cost" of the EA will be the existence of the AMA. --Iamunknown 00:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the details. --Aarktica 20:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
So, where does a newbie like myself fit in this project? --Aarktica 18:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not the only person who saw an attempted turf battle? Well, at least I'm not going insane then, but still, that's kinda new for wikipedia. :-( --Kim Bruning 21:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I like that WP:ASSIST is becoming WP:EA. Makes it all worthwhile... ;)

Standard procedure on Wikipedia is rapidly beoming "Corrupt/Crap/Bureaucratic organisation is Mfded. It survives MfD with promise of reform. Reform never occurs and morale falls. Depleted organisation is Mfded the second time and is esperanzified(how I hate that fucking word)." One would imagine unless WP:AMA realise what a precipice they stand on they will go the same way. Their discussion on reforms appear to be quite productive at the moment, but if you read their actual discussion page they're wallowing in a village council style "And so I think we need to develop a consensus on what colour the bikeshed should be..." which never bodes well. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you forget the bit where it's a medcab-ish person causing the delay at the first MFD. O:-) (and then people don't listen to them on the organisation talk page) --Kim Bruning 22:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget the relatively young and excitable user who claims that people are trying to destroy Wikipedia through the MfD and then tries to reform the organisation by creating a proposal for even more bureaucracy. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replying guidelines

When replying to a request for assistance, should we reply at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests underneath the original posting, or on the user's talk page? A few minutes ago, I answered a user's question on the requests page just as Seraphimblade was answering on the user's talk page. To avoid such duplicate work, I think we need a firm guideline on this. Walton Vivat Regina! 15:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Really, I don't think it's that big a deal. That was just a chance thing, that request had been up for hours, and we both gave pretty much the same advice anyway. I really don't think we should have any firm guidelines in the absence of an absolute need for them. :) However, I would tend to say that in general, if the editor asking for help seems to be reasonably experienced, talking to them on the request page is just fine, especially if the request seems to be something that won't require a long dialogue. A newer user, though, might not know how to use a watchlist or find that page again, but they sure won't miss the big yellow banner. In that case, it's probably best to respond on their talk (or at least leave a note on their talk with a link back to their answered request). Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
OK fair enough, although in the absence of any guidelines on this issue, I've been replying on the requests page and then notifying the user on their talkpage, which preserves continuity while ensuring that they don't miss the response. But like you say, it probably isn't that big a deal. Walton Vivat Regina! 15:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Does the request page still instruct assisting editors to remove the request once they answer it? If it weren't for that instruction, I would lean towards something more along the line of Walton's method. TheronJ 20:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Whoops, nevermind. I see we're now archiving closed questions -- that's a good change, and I've archived mine. TheronJ 02:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Either method works; just remember to add a note to the request whenever a member of the EA team has done anything concerning the case. Then I think the problem is solved. --Deryck C. 12:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not in favour of archiving all closed requests. I think that answering them on the requests page solves that problem, as it makes it clear which ones have been answered already. Walton Vivat Regina! 13:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
For completeness, I suggest that a link to the response on the EAR page be posted on the user's talk page. --Aarktica 22:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On closing requests

To prevent an unnecessary backlog, can we develop a means to ensure a follow-through on all requests? Perhaps there is a preferred means to determine which requests are ready for closure? --Aarktica 22:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Far too much overlap

Just a few things that I have noticed. It is a fact that that Seraphimblade started Editor Assistance during the MfD of the AMA as a failsafe. Now that the AMA is still around, I do believe that CyclePat's Move Request is more than apporpriate, as the EA has far too much overlap with the AMA, and that the AMA is in the middle of scaling things back for more simplicity. Wikiprojects that have too much overlaps, historically, have been merged in the past or deleted, therefore I strongly suggest that EA is combined with the AMA before things pick up too much steam. It was not appropriate (and against Wikipedia guidelines), in my opinion, to delete CyclePat's move polls, so soon I am going to be restoring them so that a discussion can be made. I bring no ill feelings; I just believe that having separate factions can cause problems, and that we should be all working together, rather than separately in our own cliques. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 14:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. I should let you know then, that in view of your determination to suppress EA, I will be writing another MfD nom for AMA. It is unacceptable for such a corrupt and bureaucratic organisation to attempt to subvert a cleaner, more consensual group. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Dev, please, this is not a WP:CIVIL reason the file an MfD. I'm not trying to "surpress" anything. This ill blood needs to stop. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 15:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
You're accusing me of point? Who is trying to force a move poll against the will of WP:ASSIST? I was planning to MfD AMA anyway, but your breathtaking arrogance has made me bring it forward. Stop trying to take over and I'll put it off. Dev920 (Have a nice day!)
Looks like the initial "EA" is a curse. Everything given this name got MfD-ed. --Deryck C. 14:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Uh, did you actually read my message? I think EA is a brilliant idea. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with Dev. What is more, the AMA is about advocacy: this is about informing people of how Wikipedia works. There's a difference. For the AMA, in its death throes, to try to take this down, is repellent. Moreschi Request a recording? 14:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Please can we all cool down, and try to reduce the hostility between the two organisations? Although I'm not against merging them in principle, I think that filing a move request is an inappropriate way to do it, since it could end with having a move forced on WP:ASSIST against the will of its members, and will just breed more hostility. Walton Vivat Regina! 15:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think a merge would serve any productive purpose at this point. Personally, I think that AMA should concentrate on getting its own house in order before attempting to annex other projects. Overlap isn't a bad thing if it gives editors more places to turn to for help. ChazBeckett 16:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, and for now, let's just see how both turn out! AMA did survive one nomination, it is true, but I don't think it's quite out of the woods yet. I hope things can be gotten in order there. At some point down the line, if it turns out that the two are duplicating each other's efforts, a merge certainly might be in order, but for now, let's let things develop as they will. Right now, there's enough difference between the two that I believe they'll be more useful separately. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I strongly agree; well said, ChazB. Anchoress 05:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I think leadership is an important thing at this critical point. Currently, as an AMAT interim coordinator I realize that EA may be considered an AMAT (AMA Team). Per WP:FORK (though more for articles) would fall within the definition of a fork. I call EA a mutiny on a boat, and currently, the mutineers, instead of trying to fix ship have decided to bail into a little life boat. It's time the ship went back, even if we have to do it with our guns, and gather the mutineers. We need their help just as much as they need our help to make it out alive of the high sea. Personnally, I think they should all be gathered up and shot... forced to do one AMA case. Similarly, AMA members should help out by taking one EA case. But, I can't see that happening unless they consider themselfs an AMA team. --CyclePat 05:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, because we all know that the best solution to something you believe a project fork is to declare it a mutiny, and advocate making people do what you want forcibly! -Amarkov moo! 05:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Amarkov, don't forget that CyclePat is suggesting that we should all be gathered up and shot! I'll come right over to the firing squad, then, how about you folks? --Iamunknown 05:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, that was figurative, and he said that what he really wants is to force you to take an AMA case, like it or not. Oh, and it's your fault that this is happening, because you refuse to accept that you are the AMA. -Amarkov moo! 05:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not jumping on you Amarkov, but I don't care if it was figurative - I think what CyclePat said above was enormously offensive and waaaaaaaaay over the line. Anchoress 05:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I totally agree, just for somewhat different reasons. I find it highly offensive when people say that they intend on bludgeoning other people into accepting their opinion, more so than any vague threat of violence. -Amarkov moo! 05:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Does this constitute assault? --Aarktica 19:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evaluation, and future plans

In light of the comments above, and the way WP:ASSIST is developing, I think EA can co-exist with AMA, for the following reasons:

  • One good thing about EA is the fact that we don't ask users to file formal "Requests for assistance" and name other users as participants, like the AMA does. This, in itself, can be seen as a confrontational act, and can sometimes escalate a trivial dispute to a higher level. Because EA really just answers users' questions, I think there's a less confrontational atmosphere.
  • On the other hand, I don't think the EA framework would be suitable for resolving more serious disputes, as we don't have formal "case files" and "assignments" in the same way. Nor would we be able, in the serious cases, to guide users through mediation at MedCom, or to offer help with arbitration cases. The AMA does have a role to play in those areas.
  • So I think the two organisations can exist together in the hierarchy of WP:DR. Trivial cases, where a user is just a little confused about Wikipolicy and/or is in a minor content dispute, can come here, and we can give them help and advice without starting a big fight. More serious cases will be sent on from EA to AMA, or go straight to AMA.

I would also like to re-iterate that I am still a member of both organisations, and intend to remain so. Walton Vivat Regina! 15:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it when proposed, EA is fully meant to see people through Mediations and Arbcom cases. We simply haven't had such a case come to us to date. The purpose is not to be another help desk, but a place for experienced editors to work one-on-one with bewildered or confused users, just as AMA does. EA was not designed as a step below AMA but as an organisation equal to it, pulling out the redeemable parts and shunting the crap. Referrals of the kind you are speaking of sound like a phenomenally bad idea. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Much as I respect some AMA members, I'll be damned if I'll refer anything to the AMA: I believe it to be unwiki and a shockingly bad example for newbies. We can cope with DR on our own here minus the wikilawyering. Moreschi Request a recording? 16:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
My view of EA is similar to what Dev described above. EA is essentially a more streamlined AMA, focused on assisting editors rather than advocating for them. Perhaps in some situations it will be necessary for a member of EA to act as an advocate in order to assist an editor, but this isn't the primary goal of EA. I believe the biggest flaw in AMA is that it's too closely modeled after a real-world legal system. I think it's more helpful to provide editors with assistance rather than WikiLegalRepresentation. Still, if AMA is successful in its housecleaning, I can see it existing as a viable group. Just my 2c. ChazBeckett 16:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I propose something is known to be very very healthy: AMA and EA must compete as two holdings in free market and let people what they like better... or maybe people like us both. So, we AMA advocates and you EA assistors will be forced to give the best of each. Of course, it must be a fair competition... Thus, my AMA fellows: no merging attempts, please, and let's work! --Neigel von Teighen | help with arbs? 16:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AMA advocates: stop dispute, be reasonable and go back to home

AMA members involved in discussions here, please, go back into our problems and let EA live in peace. OK? Editor Assistance has the right to exist, and to co-exist with AMA. And AMA has not the right to be the only assisting organization, do you understand? Attitudes like these are the ones that makes people think we're corrupt, useless, etc.

And good luck to all EA members! Hope we can work together in peace! --Neigel von Teighen | help with arbs? 16:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Neigel. Good luck to you as well. ChazBeckett 16:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for that classy comment. Anchoress 07:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! (for some reason, my last edit rendered something strange... I had to change it) --Neigel von Teighen | help with arbs? 16:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Such a tiffy over such a lightweight program! Come on, we only have three pages and a talk page. We don't even stand a chance against the AMA. Lighten up, folks. --Iamunknown 18:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

And with the exception of archive pages, that is hopefully all we will ever need. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is something that does matter, because the AMA advocates are attempting to conquer EA. However, please would Neigel try to cool down a bit? The four words "go back to home" doesn't seem a good way to tell others to calm down. --Deryck C. 06:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm calmed, just want to give a straight and clear message. (and I'm an AMA, but believe this competion will benefit us all) --Neigel von Teighen | help with arbs? 09:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Competition? That's kinda what the problem is here; people are viewing this as an organization set up to compete with the AMA. This is for when you need to ask some question, AMA is for when you need someone to help you with a dispute. That is competition with the AMA no more than RfC competes with Arbcom. -Amarkov moo! 15:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
That's not true, EA is intended to take on every type of case that comes to AMA. We just haven't got any complex ones yet. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, it is? I'm pretty sure the reason you're not getting complex cases is because people think you don't want them, then. I got the impression that this was just "please ask questions on stuff". -Amarkov moo! 15:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you're both right. AMA is when you want an advocate, this is when you want to sort out the dispute to everyone's benefit, and for general editorial assistance. Having said that, there's no reason why we can't tackle tricky cases: having said that, the University one on the requests page right now isn't entirely straightforward, and certainly needs more eyes than mine. These vexed questions of NPOV are tricky bastards :) Cheers, Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 15:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
If we aren't being clear about our work and casual viewers such as Amarkov are being mistaken, then potential clients, for want of a better word, probably are as well. Could we rewrite our front page accordingly please? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: when I talk about "competing", I'm thinking as in free market... just a way to say that people (market) has to decide which process prefer. Cheers! --Neigel von Teighen | help with arbs? 16:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert vandalism

Even as I try to have proper discussion regarding your past edits... my edits are reverted. User:Dev920 did it again, not even more than 1 hour later. Here is the comments he has vagrantly removed. [THIS editing] is becoming a harassment. Here is part of what I had posted. (minus the archived discussion on RM which was at the end). For fairness I will be posting this at WP:ANI... and I sugest someone starts an RfC because I don't see your way at all. --CyclePat 16:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

as per the discussion on my talk page: : I will not leave in peace until my comments are returned and or archived on this talk page. There is nothing offencive about them and nothing that warrants the removal. My attempts to have a discusssion as suggested by others... to try and "abduct" the WP:ASSIST are NOT RELEVANT to keeping the following conversation. It must be preserved for historical purposes. Removal of the comment bellow is considered a violation of wikipedia's rules on vandalism, "Talk page vandalism". Wikipedia has built a concensus which states:

"Removing the comments of other users from talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. An obvious exception is moving posts to a proper place (e.g. protection requests to WP:RFPP). Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there. The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion."

It appears that more than one editor has taken the liberty to remove my comments and other users comments. I'm not going to start naming names, because you know who you are but if need be I can go get each time it has been removed. It has been more than 3 times. As per WP:HAR, it is said that:

"Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of intimidating the primary target. The purpose could be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely."

Pressently, editor that keep removing my comments have created an unpleasant experience and many editors are trying to encourage me to stop editing. Truly we can corelate with this guideline of Harassment. With a specific exemple included such as "disruption intended to support a cause" it is easy to associate our current situation with the term "harassment."

The cause supported is WP:ASSIST and the method is by removing comments from people that clearly object or voice their opinion against the association. Such an exemple includes the RM discussion which was most recently removed by user:Dev920.[1] By removing this information, we are essentially forced back at "square one." similarly, when user:Kim Bruning kept removing that conversation/survey we where un-able to proceed towards a fair discussion regarding the subject.

Again, as per WP:VAN you can not remove goodfaith attempts at a conversation to build WP:CON. Whatever (within reasonable grounds of not being a plain out attack) someone says should be archived and preserved for future reference on the talk page. This is why I will keep placing the conversation back in it's location. You may be interested to know that propaganda is define as "one-sided information intended either to support or threaten a political or military group."[2] We have advertising attempts to destroy AMA by spreading accusations left and right. We also have, as describe on wikipedia, “Propaganda, in as… a corollary to censorship in which the same purpose is achieved, not by filling people's minds with approved information, but by preventing people from being confronted with opposing points of view.”[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda] In this case, the removal of comments from the talk page of WP:ASSIST demonstrate the desperation of the members of WP:ASSIST. To what extent are they going to go to if this was more than just a discussion? If they are ready to harass a user, what next? Truly there must be some limit to this non-sense? A further technique that is being used by WP:ASSIST which I have observed, is called bandwagon. This consists of inviting everyone to participate, and Reductio ad Hitlerum, by suggesting and trying to "persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action (AMA) or idea (AMA) by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held in contempt by the target audience. (wikilawyering, etc...)" Such actions, conversations and comments should not be tolerated here on wikipedia and I urge that it stop now prior to going any further within the disputes resolution. Asside: Regarding AMA and ASSIST proposed move page/merger, no matter what the decission... the conversation is an important process of wikipedia’s “building concensus.” Removing the comments or blanking the page prior to finishing such a conversation is a violation of this fundamental rule. On top of that, it falls within the criteria of vandalism. This conversation, should at least remain archived. (It should have also probably followed a fair time. Unfortunatelly that was not the case.) Again, in short, removing the archive bellow creates an unfair balance for WP:ASSIST and violated WP:VAN. --CyclePat 04:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, policy says what you say, but sometimes to concede and forget about the issue is considered good manners. Just leave EA alone. --Neigel von Teighen | help with arbs? 16:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
CyclePat, are you still opining about how EA is a group of irrational propagandists? Sorry, not convinced, nor is anyone else. --Iamunknown 16:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Score one for Godwin.--Isotope23 17:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment on Policy and Convention and Removing comments

wikipedia talk:Editor assistance - Many users have decided to stop, remove and deleted the discusion from an incomplete WP:RM poll/discussion. At issue is the rules of WP:VAN, WP:CON. Should changes to current policy be proposed? 18:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

comment: I believe it should be a preserved because it violates WP:VAN, if you remove other peoples comments. Conversations should be archived and no changes are necessary to the current policies in place. --CyclePat 18:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OK, so where do we stand?

Per all the comments above, there seem to be several wildly differing ideas about what EA actually is.

  1. Some users see it as simply better than AMA, and argue that it should replace AMA altogether.
  2. Some users see it as a "competitor" to AMA, handling the same kind of cases as AMA, but with different procedures and working methods, and an emphasis on advice rather than advocacy. The phrase "free market" has been brought up in this context, i.e. give users the choice, and let them decide which one they prefer to use.
  3. Some users see it as something that can coexist alongside AMA, only handling a different kind of case, i.e. the less serious cases. In this scenario, AMA would continue to handle cases that involved guiding users through mediation or arbitration.
  4. Some users (very much the minority) see it as a rebel group that needs to be integrated back into AMA.

I know this is a generalisation, and I apologise if I've wildly misrepresented anyone's views. But we need to decide which of the above we are actually aiming to achieve. Walton Vivat Regina! 19:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Blend of one and two. I'm opposed to the AMA existing, but that's rather irrelevant until/if the AMA does get shut down. If they can fix themselves, great. 2 best sums up our goal. No advocacy, just advice, comments, bringing people in line with the project's principles - and maybe a spot of DR now and then. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 20:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Agred. When the project was first mooted, its proposed title was "Editor Assistants". An Assistant was supposed to see a requester through anything from a tiff on a talkpage to an arbcom case as a support to explain how the procedure worked and what a requester's options were, and if people are being mistaken about that the we need to make it clearer on the main page. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I have a different view. I see Editor Assistance as the backup procedure, in case the next misc debate on the Association of Members Advocates choses to close that project. Having a lightweight process that has all the good elements still around would then be a Good Thing. --Kim Bruning 21:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I personally think that whatever was intended, if the AMA does not die, this will gravitate towards number 3. We have a grand total of zero processes that compete with each other, and I believe that there is a good reason behind that. -Amarkov moo! 05:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I would definitely agree, there's no need for competition. If anything, the AMA's got a tremendous backlog right now, so hopefully this will take some pressure off of them by handling some things that would otherwise end up there. There's enough differences between the processes that each can easily serve a useful purpose, even if AMA does get things in order and there's no second MfD. And if there is, well, this way there's still a way for people to get some one-on-one help. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Until then I first heard people saying EA are rebels from AMA, I never thought that EA could be a substitute for AMA. I just thought they were simply independent and irrelevant. --Deryck C. 08:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The trouble is that the AMA doesn't think EA is independent, and EA itself seems to be confused on the matter. It isn't simple; like I said earlier, some people want EA to replace AMA outright, some people want them to take on different roles, some people want to force EA into the AMA fold. Not to mention that, technically, EA aren't all rebels from AMA; I'm still in AMA as well as EA, and some EA members were never members of AMA in the first place (e.g. Moreschi). Sorry about the confusing discussion, but that's how it is. Walton Vivat Regina! 19:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restoring some sanity here

As someone not involved in EA or AMA who has just been observing from the sidelines for a couple of days now, I've got some suggestions. Take them or leave them as you see fit.
1. Leave the RfM in the archives - Yes, it was unwanted and it failed, but at this point having an archived record that someone tried this already and it snowed in two days might be a good link the next time someone tries it.
2. Close the RfC above - because if #1 is acceptable, this isn't be necessary.
There is more that can and should be done, but that is a start.--Isotope23 20:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this. Normally I am fine with just archiving stuff, but the RfM poll was forced onto our pages, Pat edit warred to keep it here, tried repeatedly to reopen it, and then starting trying to force the remaining mess here agin with a discussion closed template. Personally, I don't consider the move poll to be a part of our archives so much as just another pawn in CyclePat's war against EA. In which case it simply doesn't belong here. Regarding the RfC, given that this issue has now been brought up on both AN/I and CN, RfC will pull in few people who haven't already commented. You may as well close it now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, take it or leave it as you see fit... I can understand where you are coming from given some of what I've seen happening over the past few days (starting with a unilateral, undiscussed move). Like I said above though, from the outside it looks like a good warning against future actions along this line. Regardless, they were just suggestions and may end up being a moot point per WP:CN.--Isotope23 20:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A case that I think is just right for you all

The AMA got a case that I think is prefect for you all (it is a content dispute) and the editor who filed it wants advise on how to go about improving the article. Here is the link if you all are willing to take it (The case ). While I'm a member of the AMA I think you are all doing a fantasic job of making sure that the Community can get advice and assistance in order to resoulve the disputes. Good luck! Æon Insanity Now! Give Back Our Membership! 04:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think if we do it we're gonna go to AMA and do it the AMA way, instead of bringing it here as another EA case. --Deryck C. 08:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, the editor has asked for help here anyway, see the request page. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

EA works as EA works. Good luck, have fun. (and if you're out of cases, just snarf some more from Association of Members Advocates, or Mediation Cabal, or perhaps 3rd opinion, if they have a backlog at least) --Kim Bruning 12:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If the EA is out of cases, I think I'll bring up a few articles for others to ponder with. --Deryck C. 12:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't think silly things: in a couple of weeks you'll be as busy as you never think of and people will be glad because you'll do things right. --Neigel von Teighen | help with arbs? 14:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope so. There are, well, really quite a number of cases out there. I'll go and see. --Deryck C. 15:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Some jobs in the mediation cabal backlog may actually be more suited to EA. If you could filter those out, that would be a great start. --Kim Bruning 15:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem with that. Feel free to send 'em over. Cheers, Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 18:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I also figured we are all here for the comunity of Wikipedia so up to you I have no qualms about other DR processes (I think you should all consider listing yourselves on the DR menu) snag cases that are either beter suited for you all or helping to clear a back log of another project. Æon Insanity Now! Give Back Our Membership! 20:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
We are on the DR menu (or at least on the infobox). We've had a fair few requests for assistance, but you're right, it would be helpful if we could pinch cases from other project's backlogs, as they all seem to have way too much work to do. The trouble is that most of the AMA won't like it if we go through their request files and offer EA help to those who've requested AMA help. Also, it puts me (as a member of both organisations) in a rather contradictory position, as new users wouldn't necessarily know whether I was offering them assistance or advocacy, and explaining the difference would likely cause further confusion. Walton Vivat Regina! 19:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Why not Medcab, then? Maybe in some of those cases, jumping in to offer some advice would help solve the situation and eliminate the need for mediation at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Snag um! We (The AMA) don't wp:own the cases, if you all can help then by all meens you SHOULD take the case (Be bold, be very very bold). I have nothing against EA (I think it is a wonderful idea) and to the AMA members that (might) give them static about taking cases, They are here to help so lets let them help in anyway they can and we are ALL Wikipeidians and we should NOT br working against EA rather helping them get started and ensuring that the community gets the best service possible (whether it is AMA or EA). Æon Insanity Now! Give Back Our Membership! 22:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MedCab Needs Backup

Howdy! I've a case for you folks. This dispute has some history. The original mediator appears to have been permabanned, or at least banned for a lengthy period of time. Opinion on that keeps changing.

So the case went ignored for a few weeks at MedCab, probably because the person who requested a new mediator waited until just a few days ago to do so, and nobody at MedCab noticed. When I saw the request for a new mediator, I looked into the dispute, checked out the talk page, and discovered that the request for a new mediator was the only edit to either within the last month. So I closed the case as a dispute that'd died, and included in my comments my take on policy's relation to the dispute.

Curiously enough, a user who's position was supported by my closing comments has reopened the case anyway, requested another mediator and commenced arguing his point again. This I do not understand, but I humbly request that you folks take a look at the case, as I no longer feel that I would be welcome as mediator. --Moralis (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject?

Do the members here consider this to be a WikiProject? It kind of looks like one. If so, would there be anything wrong with changing that name and formalizing this just a bit? Proposed name: WikiProject Editor assistance. --NThurston 16:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's no more a WikiProject then MedCab is. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It's no more a WikiProject than Help Desk is. --Deryck C. 10:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Depends what you define as a WikiProject. It isn't listed in the WikiProject Council's directory. I don't think a change of name is necessary, but I doubt anyone would mind if you listed it under Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Wikipedia. Just my opinion. Walton Vivat Regina! 18:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Deryck makes a valid point with the Help desk analogy. As I see it, the goal of EA is to become an integral part of WP as a whole. Identifying as a WikiProject could give the appearance of some sort of clique/club, thereby undermining our efforts in the long run. On the other hand, WP:HD seems more community-oriented. --Aarktica 19:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like it is a Wikipedia administrative organization, but not a WikiProject. --NThurston 13:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guidelines on archiving.

There is a rather lengthy reply to a request on my talk page which was initiated a week ago. The request was deleted without resolution.

What guidelines exist for archiving EAR posts? What happens in the event where a request is deleted while a resolution is in process? --Aarktica 22:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I archived a bunch of older stuff. Generally, if there's nothing going on on that page with regards to it, I don't see the harm in archiving-if it's going to be lengthy, probably better to take it to the user's talk anyway. If you want it put back on the page, though, please go ahead and do so with a note not to archive it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is why I think it is important for us to determine how to follow-up on EAR posts. If nobody is paying attention, and requests fall by the wayside, doesn't that defeat the purpose of EA?
The concern I have is that we do not have clearly defined processes in place to deal with the volume of requests — which will only increase if we are doing what we are supposed to be doing. I was going through the older posts, working to {{resolve}} them as fast as I could. However, I'd hate to see unresolved requests moved off the EAR page, simply because of the backlog. --Aarktica 22:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hrm. You have a point there, although it appeared most of the older ones were resolved (or at least, that discussion had moved elsewhere). Maybe we should be better about using {{resolved}}, I don't really use it all that often myself, just for clarity's sake. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a QA issue; the world won't end without it, but it would be helpful when trying to measure how well we are doing when it comes to resolving EARs. I suggest that we notify submitters that request are archived after seven days of inactivity (with a shorter length of time for anonymous/IP edits.)
In any event, I think we should make an effort to follow-up with the users in the meantime. --Aarktica 23:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know that I like a "shorter time" for anon editors-many anons are probably the ones that need help the most, if anything. I think some type of "archive it if it's resolved, if there's no activity on the thread in a week go ahead and archive it" would be helpful. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. I would still like a query on this talk page, for two reasons:
  1. Determine if anyone is working on a particular request;
  2. Notify interested parties about which items are targets for archiving.
This would be very helpful — at least for me. This is because I neither have the time (nor the energy) to restore requests on the EAR page, once they have been deleted. --Aarktica 12:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for automation

Is it possible for the EA to implement an automated system of archiving? I have seen pages in project space which have an automated archiving system. Perhaps the EAR could use one which archives items tagged been 'resolved' or 'stale' for a week or so? --Aarktica 13:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Are there any objections to automate the archiving of requests? --Aarktica 20:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
No objections, but in that case we need to write a bot which identifies stale/resolved tags. I think there are none here for the time being. --Deryck C. 02:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, we could just have the bot archive after, say, a week in which no one's commented in that section. That's stale enough, I would think, and would keep everything from having to be manually tagged-after all, if something's stale or resolved, people will quit commenting! If no one objects, I can put in a request for Miszabot to start archiving the page. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I would rather have a bot that archives based on the tags; however, if that option turns out to be unavailable, I would take the alternative. --Aarktica 12:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I also believe that tagged and untagged cases should be treated differently. Cases tagged with resolved or stale could be archived in a few days, but those without tags should not be moved until there's no discussion in 10~14 days. Miszabot doesn't understand the difference. --Deryck C. 06:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you available to create one which will meet these requirements? --Aarktica 22:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, could you please proceed with the request? I would rather just be responsible for tagging (and archiving) the articles as appropriate, in a timely fashion. The automated process could serve as a backup — archiving any articles which have been on the page for two weeks. Aarktica 16:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

I just wanted to give everyone a hearty slap on the back for all their efforts to get this place going - it looks like it is thriving. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the kind note. Cheers. --Aarktica 00:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging with Wikipedia:New contributors' help page

Could it be an idea to merge this place with WP:NUH? Especially as they already have the {{helpme}}bot up and running, providing much of the same help? Several places providing basically the same functionality only serves to confuse new users IMO. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 12:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

EA is of a wider scope than that. It is a bit like Wikipedia:Reach out. NUH is specialized for newcomers, so I think the projects are quite irrelevant to each other. --Deryck C. 04:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Point of Information.

Can we have a structure for the way requests are made? After reviewing sprawling requests and other undesirable submissions, I believe that the EA is best served by having terse requests. --Aarktica 22:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well we don't really want instruction creep... So it's better for the assistants to fix the issues, not the prefixed rules. Assistants should judge what to do. --Deryck C. 13:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project page aesthetics.

The new template is nice, but it appears to obscure the introductory text for the project page when using the preview-via-popup function. As such, the first thing that appears is the WP:EXPECT section.

Is this something that can be fixed in the template? I would rather have the introduction be visible, as it provides a rather concise statement about the purpose of EA. --Aarktica 16:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What pop-up? Adrian M. H. 17:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
See WP:POPUP for more information on the tool. It has made navigation of the encyclopaedia much more pleasant for me. --Aarktica 17:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
If you have an issue with this page, do you have the same problem with other pages? How big an issue is it? (Screenshot would be welcome of possible). I can't really see how the table could be at fault when we use the same system on all help pages, like RFF, 3O, etc. Adrian M. H. 14:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The occurence is rather infrequent, but jarring when it does. How shall I send the images to you? --Aarktica 20:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, just pop it up on Imageshack [3] or something and provide a link. I'd be interested to see the effect as you see it. Adrian M. H. 21:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The images have been uploaded. The examples you referred to were rather apropos; notice the difference between previews for 3O and RFF. --Aarktica 23:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Any comments? --Aarktica 11:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry for not getting back to you. I have been busy lately improving a portal to potential FP status. I can't actually see any problem in your screenshots, or how that relates to (or affects) the EA header. Those pop-ups would annoy me, but that's just personal taste of course. Other than that, I can't imagine any technical issues. Adrian M. H. 12:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
(de-indent) The new layout – as illustrated by the difference between WP:RFF and WP:3O – obscures salient information and introduces accessibility issues. At the moment, I am without a high-speed connection; being able to see the LEDE is helpful in determining whether or not to fetch the entire page. --Aarktica 14:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
So it's the nature of the text in the pop-up that bothers you? I wish you had said that in the first place because your description left me under the impression that the pop-up was covering something on the screen. Obviously, I am well aware of accessibility issues (since it is integral to my work) but this is not an accessibility issue; it is a usability issue, and one that users are not forced into. The access-disadvantaged are usually not in a position to use scripting in the first place. Since you have raised this issue here, have you also raised it with regard to similar pages with transcluded headers, such as the Help Desk, NCH, etc? Adrian M. H. 15:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The navigation tool makes it easier for me to preview content, and is anything but a nuisance in that regard. In any event, it was never my intention to imply that any sort of "force" was employed here. Pardon the miscommunication.
That said, I have raised the issue here because I visit WP:EA regularly. The revision was unannounced, and I only noticed the change after it was implemented. --Aarktica 15:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It was unannounced, yes; I saw no reason to start a discussion about an obvious improvement in layout and wording. By force, I mean that it only affects users who have taken up the option of employing a pop-up tool. If it affected the functionality of a standard feature, that would be of greater concern. However, that is not to say that I do not appreciate your concern and I will look into possible solutions. What result do you get from the Help Desk, Ref Desk, VP, etc? The HD has a transcluded header, like most most help/discussion pages in WP: space, but it has some hidden comments. Do you see those? I could try adding some content in a divider styled to appear off-screen (which is a common technique for providing text that only screen readers and other non-CSS devices will see when the content is shown in a graphical form for sighted users). Adrian M. H. 17:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
You want me to start reviewing similar pages in project space? To what purpose, may I ask? --Aarktica 20:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, you're the one who complained about it! Do you get the same problem on other pages that use transcluded headers instead of regular text content? I'm trying to be accommodating here, but it's probably a moot point, frankly, as this really seems like a tiny issue. Adrian M. H. 20:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I never mentioned any of the other pages you listed, as I rarely ever visit them. I was wondering what would be the point of having me investigate all the other pages. --Aarktica 21:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Look, Aarktica. I know that you didn't mention them, but they use very similar layouts (templated headers), so they might also be affected. If you can't help me to help you by taking a brief moment of your time to see if you experience the same issue with pages that use a very similar technical layout, or whether EA is isolated, then I wash my hands of this. It really seems to be a tiny issue that no one else has raised. I suggest that you live with it, since there are many more important things to worry about in this encyclopædia. Adrian M. H. 22:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The ones that you referred to all have the same outcome. When you initially asked the question, I got the impression that I was supposed to go around to all other pages and raise the same issue there. --Aarktica 22:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outdated List of Editors Section

FYI I was delighted to find just what I needed: # I consider myself a pro on WP:NPOV, and do whatever I can to ensure that articles I contribute to follow this guideline. If you would like assistance on maintaining neutrality, or you require general grammatical assistance, formatting, etc... I am more than willing to help. I am not a believer in bias or spin.--RWilliamKing 18:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Until clicked on his link and his page is gone. So if someone who works on this page a lot wants to clean up editors list that would be great for those seeking help :-) Carol Moore 01:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Help requests are best placed on the requests page. There is no guarantee that even an active editor will be able to reply to every talk page comment that comes their way each day. Adrian M. H. 12:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The editor above has placed a notice on my talk page (As I requested when I signed up.) And I've responded there. As an aside, perhaps we should make a note to check someone's contribution history (for activity) before asking for help on their talk page? - jc37 13:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I will write something to the effect that they may not be active or in a position to respond promptly. Adrian M. H. 15:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Anyone free?

Are there any editor assistants who are currently not very busy right now, and wouldn't mind getting a lot busier? Leave me a message per wikipedia E-mail or on my talk page. User:Triona and I are up to something. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)