Wikipedia talk:Teahouse

This page is only for discussing how the Teahouse is run and operated. If you need help with editing, or have a question about how Wikipedia works, click here to go to the Teahouse Q&A forum.

A few questions about the "Meet your hosts" page

I've taken a close look at the Meet your hosts page at the teahouse and noticed a number of things that I am confused about and or think could have an argument made to be changed.

Badges

I saw the badges that are listed in every host's introductory sections, and noticed the "Badges" section, supposedly showing the badges that they earned. I didn't know what badges were, so I clicked on the one badge that it appeared everyone else had. I was confused on why it existed, so I went to the badges page to see the other badges you could get. I get to the page to see that it was "retained for historical reference." I see that no one, past people who have been in the teahouse for a long time, have any badges besides the first one that everyone else has. I would assume that everyone who becomes a host just adds it because they see everyone has it and don't realize what it even is. If no one is actually trying to get badges, the badges say that they're historical on their page, and no one actually does anything with them anymore, why are they still displayed? You could keep them there, for some historical reference, or they could be removed all-together off of the page.

"Active" hosts

Above the list of hosts, it claims that the list below is a "List of active Hosts". Looking through a few of them, you can find people who haven't edited the teahouse, let alone wikipedia at all, for multiple years. Should it not be common practice to go down the list every once and a while and remove some inactive hosts? I know that wikiprojects do this, adding them to a list of inactive members. Maybe the teahouse could do something similar.

Featured Editors

This is less of a critique, and more of a question. Whenever you're on a page in the teahouse, the header shows the profile and name of a "featured editor" randomly selected from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured. After reading the page, I'm not sure I can see why the people on the page are featured. The page states that it is for editors who are the most active on the teahouse page, but I'm not sure that's how it's been used for a while. The last few edits have just been adding themselves to the list, and I don't know where it was decided that they should do that. The page gets edited about once a year and I'm thinking that it could be marked as historical, or should be revived and cleaned up.

These are just my thoughts and opinions, and I'm just trying to make the teahouse a better place. If you think I've made any mistakes in what I've said, please let me know. Thanks, ― Levi_OP^Talk 18:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Levi_OP: badges, and the status of "host", are pretty much meaningless. I had never even heard of "featured editors". I have no idea whether I am, or ever have been, any of those things, and I don't see it as mattering. I edit with the aim of improving Wikipedia, and I answer questions at the Teahouse with the aim of helping others to improve it. Maproom (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Levi_OP. You make a number of interesting points - thank you. Expanding on User:Maproom's reply to you, I'll try to address them in turn and from my perspective as someone who has tried to help out here and tidy things a bit over the last three or four years.

Badges: I've long felt these were redundant, and I suspect most others here do, too. One of them is added automatically via a template to every new user signing up as a host via the template. I've simply not found the time to address that, though agree with you in it being worthwhile marking them as historic and cleaning them out of the Host_landing page, as they only serve to confuse anyone who stares too deeply into that particular backwater of the Teahouse.

Active Hosts: Since mid-2019 I've kept an eye (via watchlist) on the list of people who have self-signed up as Hosts because it does, on very rare occasions, get misused. You're no doubt aware that anyone can add themselves if they meet the basic 'host expectations', and it's only a tiny number of inexperienced people who do for WP:HATCOLLECTING reasons, no doubt. It's also only rarely that we'd remove someone unless they clearly have absolutely no experience in editing whatsoever, as it's often the first way that a fairly new user can feel they're starting to playing a more involved role in the Wikipedia Project (at least, that's my view of it). If I can find the time, I try to leave each new sign-up a welcome message which you'll have noticed also says we might remove them if they don't participate. To that end I also maintain an Excel spreadsheet of every name on the Host list, when they joined up, when they last edited here, and their total TH contributions. Then, every 6-9 months or so I go through, adding new host sign-ups, and checking the list for users who have added their names, but haven't actually contributed since that time, and remove those newer names, plus anyone who has gone and got themselves blocked for any reason. I recognise it may look as if there are a number of users still on the list who have not been active here recently, but many are editors selected to be retained because they were heavily involved in the founding of the Teahouse, or who have made significant and prolonged contributions in the past, even if they're not very active at the Teahouse right now. I recognise it may be timely to review those names again, and ask them if they wish to remain there, and to do a further trim of names who've never edited since signing up. I'll endeavour to get around to in the coming months if I can. But, as Maproom says, our key focus is on helping people, rather than putting in a lot of work that few people are likely to notice - even if you quite rightly have.

Featured Hosts The rationale for selecting the changing usernames and images for this feature in the Teahouse Header is explained on its page, but I recognise the names have not been reviewed for a couple of years, so this is probably well worth doing again - especially as one of our long-standing and formerly very active hosts here (DESiegel) has not been active on Wikipedia for the last 12 months. I should point out that I did mark the 'Featured Guest' item as 'historical' quite some while back. We also had a discussion fairly recently about whether or not to remove the randomly changing images and names from the Teahouse header, but agreed to keep it as it helped make the Teahouse forum a bit more personal and different from all the others here- something that has been at the heart of the Teahouse philosophy since its creation. It's important to appreciate that nothing in the TH Header actually calls these 30 selected usernames 'Featured'. So, bearing in mind it isn't labelled as such, nor identify any user as actually being "Featured" for some spurious reason, I don't feel it needs to be removed or marked as historic - though it could benefit from being updated. Only two active editors have added their own names in two years, though one asked to be removed shortly afterwards, if I remember correctly.

If you look back through the archives here, you'll see we've had quite a few discussions over the last couple of years about the best ways to keep things clear and up-to-date, and which were the priority issues to address. There's still more that could be done, and I hope I've answered your questions as fully as I can. Thanks for raising them. NM Demo (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC) (alt-account of User:Nick Moyes)

@NM Demo: So what I'm hearing is I can add myself as a featured host? ––FormalDude ^talk 10:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude: Well, to avoid a free-for-all, I'd prefer that people don't just attempt to add themselves on odd occasions, because it'll make more work trying to sort things out all the time if it starts to attract 'hat collectors'. There are certainly hosts listed here who appear to have been more active at the Teahouse than yourself recently, but also many who have been less so. I'll try and find a few hours next year to sit down and go through it all, and refresh some faces that people see, as well as ensuring a good mix of genders, ethnicities and so forth. Cheers, NM Demo (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC) (this is an alt-account of Nick Moyes)

Thanks! Appreciate your work here. ––FormalDude ^talk 02:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@NM Demo: I was able to remove the badges from the host page. I also marked Wikipedia:Teahouse/Badge/Host as historical. Hopefully this helps save you some work. If not feel free to revert me. ––FormalDude ^talk 02:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@NM Demo: As you're removing inactive hosts, should we also remove Teahouse host userboxes from their user pages? (e.g. User:Yunshui/About includes {{User:Rosalina2427/Teahouse Host}}. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty Hmmm. Not sure. Whilst I've just removed an 'adopter' template from someone, I feel much less bothered about someone putting or leaving a host template on their userpage when they're no longer listed here. If it bothered you, rather than edit their userpage directly, a message on their TP might be more pleasant.

However, I shalln't be doing it myself - the task of poring over Excel and Xtools and determining if which are stale entries (or which might be next time around) has already taken many hours, and I'm not 1/2 way through. However, I've been pinging most editors to alert them to removal, so I will add a request from hereon in to remove the template if they don't plan on returning to help out once more. Struck this as I've just tried it and it's too much extra work to check every one as I go, as not everyone uses them. The lists can be matched up by someone once the job's done, and they can leave a polite message for the user if they wish to. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

FormalDude, you are a featured host in my book no matter what. I appreciate your insightful responses and willingness to help. --ARoseWolf 16:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! ––FormalDude talk 16:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Is talkback recommended for IPs?

I'm an infrequent responder, but when I do respond and it's to an IP (especially a newbie), I try to leave them a {{talkback}} message with a section link (e.g., here), as anons don't get pings, and may not remember where they left their question. Imho, this should be part of the advice for responders, if it isn't already. Mathglot (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

It is, and there's even a script for it. ― Qwerfjkltalk 22:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I've only recently started leaving tb messages after learning that pinging an IP doesn't work. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Archived in 2 or 3 days

Hello! I have a question about the Teahouse's archiving specifically. Is the Teahouse archived after 2 days or 3? The Teahouse Talkback Template says 2 days, however the Teahouse itself says 3 days (Munninbot is vague and says "a few days"). So which is it? 2 or 3? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: The User:MiszaBot/config template is set to archive after 48 hours of inactivity, and the bot runs daily, so in practice threads some threads will be archived a little after 2 full days while some will be archived a little before 3 full days. GoingBatty (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright. So are you saying it depends? And if so should we update the talkback template to say 3 days to match the Teahouse or should we make both of them vague like Munninbot? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

In the long-term it's probably better to make it less definite, as there have been times the archiving time has changed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright sounds good. Mind if I make those changes? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: Note that {{Teahouse talkback}} says "old questions are archived after 2 days of inactivity", while the Teahouse says "Completed questions are archived within 3 days." They're both correct, but they're looking at either end of the range. I won't object if someone changes the wording on the Teahouse to state "Old questions are archived after 2 days of inactivity." GoingBatty (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it should be changed to say "2-3 days"? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no harm in a little ambiguity - the purpose of saying two (or three) days is to help users understand why the heck their post has disappeared. Knowing it gets archived sooner should alleviate any frustration or confusion. I'd be happy with the lower end of the scale, but keeping it to "2-3 days" covers all eventualities, and changes to the archiving settings. And if it's still there a week later, because there have been ongoing edits to the thread, that's a benefit, eh? Nick Moyes (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I think I"ll go with "2-3 days" then since there is the chance of variation from what I'm being told. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I have changed the main Teahouse header to reflect this. Qwerfjkl has added an edit request to the talkback page to make this change. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Inexperienced editors answering questions

This has probably been discussed many times before, and I don't want to sound like some grumpy old dude who's just looking for things to complain about. I've noticed that once again there seem to be some relatively new and inexperienced editors creeping in and answering questions lately which might not be the best thing. These answers are well-meaning and made in good faith, but they seem to be redundant or superficial at best. I've got no problem with similar answers being given by different editors (especially when it's likely due to an edit conflict), but essentially repeating answers added hours earlier or trying to add templates as examples in Teahouse answers might not be as helpful as they're intended to be. I completely get it when some new editor asks a question, gets a friendly response that's helpful and then wants to return the favor by helping someone else. That's a good thing, in principle, and I'm not really looking to discourage it. However, when I see an editor who forgot their password after a few days and has asked questions like this or this (which I'm totally sure were asked in good faith) responding to Teahouse questions, I start to wonder whether that's really such a good thing.

This is just a thought, but I'm wondering if maybe there's a way to create a friendly sort of WP:UW template which thanks someone (IPs included) for trying to help out at the Teahouse, but politely asks them to refrain from doing so until they've been come more experienced or familiar with editing and relevant policies and guidelines. I'm not suggesting we use this template for editors as a form of punishment (e.g. for incorrect or incomplete answers), but only for those new or newish editors who might be really enthusiastic about helping others, but might not be knowlegeable enough to properly do so just quite yet. This template would not be for one-timers, but only for those editors who seem to have taken up residency (so to speak) at the Teahouse (i.e. answering multiple questions in a given period of time). Maybe these editors could be offered the chance to participate in sort of a "Teahouse host training" program (like they have for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerk training) where more experienced hosts can help mentor or train them at becoming better at answering questions. The template I mentioned above could also be part invitation with links to a signup page (like WP:SPI/CN#Trainee/clerking interest and discussion) where they can request further guidance on how to become a host if that's what they really want to do. It might also be a way for more experienced hosts to better monitor the progress of these editors as they answer Teahouse questions. Maybe by adding a little more structure to the process of becoming a host, we can improve the overall quality of hosts? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to change "experienced" to "inexperienced" in second sentence as pointed out below. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)]

Marchjuly, in my opinion, the Teahouse ought to be a place where the use of templates and other types of canned responses is kept to a minimum. You are using one specific editor as an example and have taken the time to analyze the problems with their participation in answering questions at the Teahouse. In such cases, my suggestion is to take that personalized feedback to the editor's talk page. I have done that myself in several cases and I am aware that other experienced Teahouse hosts have as well. Personalized interactions are usually more effective than templates, in my experience. Obviously, when editors and administrators are warning or blocking spammers or vandals, templates are necessary for efficiency. But for good faith newbies trying too hard to gain a good reputation, I believe in taking a few minutes to craft a tailored response. Cullen328 (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you about personalized messages being better than templates and have followed that approach in the past. FWIW, I really wasn't trying to single any one particular editor out although that's unfortunately what I ended up doing. Those were just the edits I noticed at that particular time, but I've noticed other ones recently as well. Anyway, I guess the first part of my post was what ended up being unintentionally emphasized, but it's the second part about the possiblilty of creating a "training program" for those wanting to be regular contributors at the Teahouse. I'm not sure that something as formal as WP:RFR is necessary or even workable, but perhaps something like WP:MENTOR for prospective Teahouse hosts might be helpful for new editors who want to be regulars. Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host lounge/Expectations and Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host_start are nice, but perhaps there's a more formal way for experienced hosts to mentor prospective hosts. Maybe we can create a list of Teahouse hosts interested in mentoring prospective hosts, and then prospective hosts can then pick people from this list. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

A training program for Teahouse Hosts is an interesting idea, but one I'm not sure would work. The Teahouse is, by its very nature, a training forum for new editors -some who have been around more than others and may think they can help out, and give it a go. As you say, we do have our Teahouse guidelines for them to sign up to, and not all competent new editors do sign up, yet still help out. Providing their activities here are not overly disruptive - and providing we are prepared to steer them towards more friendly ways of engaging if they're not coming across in a friendly or welcoming manner - then I'm fairly happy to see newer editors engage with others and learn. Yes, it can be a bit tiresome when the rare editor makes themselves overly present for a time and doesn't really help the genuine newcomers. That's when a quiet word on their talk page, or an intervention beneath their latest post might help them.

Although I came into the Teahouse at Cullen's invitation, and already fairly experienced, others have come here whilst still learning the basics - perhaps through seeing a Teahouse welcome invitation. We always say anyone is welcome to answer a question here, though not sign themselves up as a Host unless they've achieved a minimum of edits (still an area worth discussing/agreeing on). So I tend to tolerate a few sharper responses if these new, possibly younger-aged editors, are likely to be encouraged to engage and to stick around and contribute both now and in future years, and become the hosts of tomorrow. I think that a little extra effort on our part, or perhaps the odd gentle public reminder to someone to interact more helpfully, is a small price to pay for helping new editors feel a real part of this Project.

@Marchjuly Two things as an aside for you: a) I think you meant 'inexperienced' in your 2nd sentence, and b) your self-description as 'dude' threw me. Probably because of your gentle, careful and considered responses you always give people here, I had somehow (and based on no other evidence) come to assume you were female. So I'm now adjusting my perception of who I imagine when I see your username. Hope you won't feel weirded out by my saying that -Just thought I throw that in for a bit of fun. I often think there's an essay there about how we (or maybe it's just me?) draw conclusions about people based on usernames, their spellings, and what we see in their writing here. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that was an error on my part. My mind was telling my hands to type "inexperienced", but they obviously weren't listening. Thank you for catching that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Marchjuly: I suppose the header should read Inexperienced editors asking answering questions?
  • Yes that was quite a silly mistake on my part. Thanks for catching it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding what to do when a well-meaning but out-of-their-depth newbie answers questions, I agree with Cullen328 - talk to them on the talk page with a personalized message. We are not (yet) so overrun by that problem that it needs a Twinkle shortcut, and we have not yet met one instance when an editor did not desist after being warned.

Regarding the training program and associated questions... I already feel a bit uncomfortable about the "host" status, currently defined by who has a rotating picture in the header (and I said so back when the header was (re)created). In some aspects of Wikipedia life, to become X you have to follow a certain process, say for instance X = admin or template editor. In other aspects, you become X by doing stuff that Xs do, such as SPI clerking (yes there is the training, but AFAIK it is not mandatory; once you start clerking you are a clerk as long as you don’t do stupid stuff and if you do you get escalating warnings until you stop). Teahouse hosting is a weird area where there is no gating process, yet there still is some official list of qualified people, and it is not clear whether you can write yourself into the list or if you will get your edit reverted with a terse edit summary.

I fell unsure about a training for being a Teahouse host. SPI is an area where knowledge of the appropriate policies / procedures is 80% of the job. Teahouse hosting is 80% about temperament - always be gentle (even in the face of apparently dumb or malicious questions) and refrain from answering if you are not sure of the answer. That is not something easy to train.

We could gate the process a bit. I feel WP:ORCP is a better template though. Here would be my proposal - possibly I should write it up as an essay Wikipedia:So you want to be a Teahouse host if you people think it looks decent.

• The only requirement to get on the Teahouse host lists is to go through a "test" (and thereafter be somewhat active to stay on the list)
• The "test" consists in five or ten actual questions. (We would take those from the archive, and mix a bit of different stuff - one about image copyright, one about a content dispute question where you need to look up the user’s contributions, etc.)
• You answer them as if they were real (so, you can skip some)
• You post your answers in draft space / on the Teahouse talk page / somewhere (but not to the persons that actually asked them). Current Teahouse hosts will give you feedback about your answers that you are supposed to acknowledge.
• Once you acknowledge the feedback, you pass the test. That is the crucial part. Even if all your answers were widely incorrect, if you still want to be a host, we trust that you will correct yourself.

The point of the "test" is that we do not fail the candidate (whoever "we" is). Most likely, unqualified candidates will realize themselves that answering Teahouse questions is boring or too hard (if they decide to skip four out of five), or that they know less than they think they know (if the feedback shows many incorrect answers). It is not likely that they would give incorrect answers, acknowledge the feedback correcting them, and still give the same kind of incorrect answers to newbies next; and if someone does that, they will be much easier to drag to ANI to get a ban from the Teahouse. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 17:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I actually really like that idea. I also think that instead of having rotating images of who is a Teahouse host, it's just a link to the list of who is a host. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with most of this except for a partial block from the Teahouse: what if the (problem) user has a question to ask? I'd suggest giving them personalised messages as suggested, and giving them a temporary block on the grounds of WP:CIR if the behaviour persists. I think that would persuade such users to think clearly about the question being asked, and even consult archives for past answers that can be worked off of. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I meant a ban from answering questions on the Teahouse as a (very specific) topic ban; it would not be enforced with a block. A page block would indeed prevent them from asking questions and is not desirable - such a hypothetical user would precisely benefit from asking questions. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with what Tenryuu said. In theory they could just ask their questions at the Help Desk, however giving a temp CIR block is probably better. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

A few sample questions to answer isn't a bad idea, could even call it a self-assesment, so there's not a need for someone to formally review and approve. Egregious answers would lead to an experienced editor discussing on their talk page.

Personally, I've never formally applied as a host but as AfC process directs people to teahouse, it is a regular stop for me to see if an editor has left concerns here rather than AfC Help, my talk page or the article. And if I can help someone, I do. Slywriter (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter It's perhaps a failure of our messaging to those new users who submit drafts that they often come first to the Teahouse. It is meant to direct them to AfC Help for declined drafts, and to the Teahouse for anything else. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• May I correct an important misconception made above by more than one user? It was stated that host status is currently defined by who has a rotating picture in the header This is absolutely not correct. Host are simply defined by those editors who have chosen to add their own names to the Host list via the big 'Become a Host' button on the Teahouse header, and nothing else. Yes, they've agreed to meet our Host Expectations, but it is not a WP:PERM; it's a simple self-selecting process. Quite a few enthusiastic new editors do add their names but never contribute here in any meaningful way. It's rare that we would remove a name immediately from the list, and much rarer still to block anyone from contributing, though it has happened on odd occasions when clear WP:CIR is lacking (One IP was specifically blocked about 4 years ago for giving bad answers all the time, if I recollect correctly). But it's no big issue. Their names are removed in due course - usually after 6 months or so of no contributions having been made here. The rotating header images are intended simply to show around 30 of the most currently active host names that any user might reasonably encounter, and thus to present a different and more personable impression of the Teahouse forum (a 'friendly face' if you will), and one that they don't experience outside of this venue. (Admittedly, these are a little out of date right now, and I have been working on updating them in recent weeks)

I really would not want to add extra hurdles to contributing at the Teahouse, other than perhaps formally agreeing to a minimum number of mainspace edits anyone ought to have they may need. And that would simply be to stop the tiny handful of enthusiastic new editors who want to sign themselves up but have only spent their time making hundreds of minor edits to their or other people's user pages. I don't see sufficient of a problem to require any extra solution or change at this time, and certainly not by having to asses user's answers to a test before letting them add their names as a host. It was rightfully suggested that 80% of a good host's skills lie in their ability to engage with other users. A self-test might be fine (see my draft idea for a self-test at ORFA here), but not one requiring existing host assessment or approval, which then becomes a sort of proxy-Permission. I think keeping things informal, and offering a gentle steer to enthusiastic new helpers here is the best way. In extremis, we can always discuss and reach consensus to remove a host or block them from contributing should things ever get out of hand. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Nick Moyes: Host[s] are simply defined by those editors who have chosen to add their own names to the Host list via the big 'Become a Host' button on the Teahouse header [and not by the rotating pictures] Sorry, I did not explain clearly what I meant. What you describe is indeed how the Official Teahouse List is created. What I describe is how new editors perceive it. (Now, there might be a reasonable argument that finding the host list is the test to become a host.) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Speaking as a new member who had been enjoying answering help questions at the Teahouse, I'd like to say not all new Editors provide inaccurate answers. I've been very careful to answer only those questions where I know the answer or at least in one case a viable suggestion I've seen used throughout Wikipedia (like here & here). While we may be new to Wikipedia, that does not mean we are without skills & knowledge brought from our other life experiences. It should also be noted that many experienced Editors give inaccurate or incorrect answers, in good faith but still incorrect. Just scan through the Teahoouse page to find a few examples. So it seems unfair to blanket lump new Editors into a problematic pile based purely on time being a member. I say "had been enjoying" helping people here as I've now stopped, due to being told that "it would be better for you to be asking questions rather than answering them" on my talk page. I assume inspired by this conversation on the Teahouse Talk page. I'd totally have understood such a comment if I'd given incorrect answers & was biting off more than I could chew but considering the small selection of answers I'd given to questions were correct, this seems rather unjustified & definitely leaves a sour taste in one's mouth. Perhaps it wasn't intended to be as cutting as it seems but I feel I need to express how it made me feel. If answering questions at the Teahouse is an exclusive club, then you definitely need to specify "hosts" only. Handing out blanket warnings, even if they aren't the horrendously impersonal Templates so beloved by some at Wikipedia, to people answering questions even though they've been giving correct answers is not a good solution in my opinion. Just wanted to leave the thoughts of someone new on the receiving end of this topic. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 12:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@LooksGreatInATurtleNeck Thank you for that insight, and I'm sorry if you were given the impression that your input was not welcome at the Teahouse - it most certainly is. I think @Blaze Wolf actually knows that we do welcome new users contributing to help others but, perhaps because they had themselves made one or two easy mistakes when they started, I think they were trying to offer an insight to you to assist you - not to stop you. It seems that didn't quite go as intended, as their follow-up response indicated they also appreciated.

We certainly don't expect only those who feel they have enough experience to sign themselves up as 'hosts' to assist here. Anyone can help out, though our 'host expectations' do show that we expect those who add their names to our host list do have a certain minimum level of editing experience and (more importantly) a willingness to engage in a friendly, helpful manner.

As I hope you've seen from some of my replies in both this and past threads on this page, I feel the Teahouse is the perfect platform for new users to both learn and to bring and share their experiences with others. In my mind, I imagine that the Teahouse helps new editors ready themselves for further involvement in other parts of the project where tolerance is often in even less supply, and experience is assumed. Anything that puts them off from that means we're not doing our job here as effectively as we could.

TBH: I'm still learning after 10 years and 50,000+ edits here, so experience really is a relative thing. The one thing I am 100% lacking in is the new user experience - so that is something that you and others can most usefully bring, especially if you can share it with other more confused new users. If I happen to tell a new user that X happens then they do Y, and you can come back to say that in your experience (also as a new user), that Z happens, then I would find that just as helpful to know as the other person.

The Teahouse really can be a great learning experience, and thanks for bringing your perspective to this talk page. Do please stick around and help when you're able. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Nick Moyes! Thanks for your thoughtful, thorough & kind reply. I did not mean to throw Blaze Wolf under the bus, I did glean from their follow up response that they weren't intending to sound as harsh as they came across in the first. It's easy for new members at Wikipedia to get "stung" as a lot of Editors seem to treat working here as a "full contact sport" rather than a collaborative librarial endeavor. :) After this happens a few times there's a tendency to see hostility where perhaps it is not intended. I fear a lot of new Editors are lost in the first initial attempts to work here. Helping at the Teahouse is not only rewarding in just helping someone else but also frequently educational to the person answering, especially for new users. For instance, when I helped the member with the {{clear left}} Template, I in turn learned about the handy <nowiki> tags that can be used to prevent code from executing in text (like a code quote block on "normal" forums). Useful when wanting to mention such code but not wanting it to function in the reply. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Yes that is true. I did not intend to stop them from answering questions. I was simply meaning to advise them to be careful, however due to a poor choice of wording it appears I came off as asking them to stop. I was simply trying to tell them to be careful when answering questions since I didn't want the same thing that happened to me a few months (feels a lot longer) back where I was answering questions even if I wasn't completely sure on the answer, so I ended up giving many wrong answers. @LooksGreatInATurtleNeck: When I saw your reply I felt bad because I had never meant for you to stop answering questions and I always try to be welcoming and helpful to new users and I try not to scare them off, however in this case I failed to do so and I am truly sorry for doing so and I hope to help you out in the future. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Blaze Wolf! Thank you for clarifying. See my above response about already having been "stung" a few times by others here which I think may have added to me being hurt by your initial Talk page comment. Indeed one of the reasons I'd turned to responding at the Teahouse was that I wanted to help others & contribute while avoiding anything contentious. :) I certainly appreciate you pointing out the valid dangers of over reaching too soon in replying to questions at the Teahouse. My previous interactions here had already made me aware not to bite off more than I could chew, thus I was extra careful to only answer questions I was certain of. Again, thanks for taking the time to reply here, it certainly has made feel better about the interaction. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@LooksGreatInATurtleNeck: No problem! Honestly, one of my biggest fears on Wikipedia is phrasing something poorly and scaring a new user away from Wikipedia, so I always try and avoid doing so and if it appears I have done so I try and correct it as soon as I can. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• I very much agree with LooksGreatInATurtleNeck that no obstacle should be put in the way of those who want to contribute answers at the Teahouse. Anyone can give an imperfect answer but the place is sufficiently well-attended that better answers will soon appear. I started contributing here (and at the Help Desk and Reference Desk of Science) many months ago because I found it a great way to learn about Wikipedia. I never added my name to the list of hosts because I didn't want to feel obliged to reply. I only found out much later that the host name shown is chosen by a bot and may be someone who isn't in fact active that day. I'd rather that the bot simply checked out who had given answers most frequently over the past (say) week and rotated their names. The bot could count edits that didn't start a new section = question but have added something. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks to everyone for those replies, above. Just to correct another very minor misconception that Mike has alluded to: long ago there was indeed a bot which was able to select the most active hosts every week and display their names in the header. Unfortunately, its creator, J T Morgan (who was instrumental in setting up the Teahouse in c 2012) informed me that their bot had to be deactivated because it was causing certain issues elsewhere, and that the root cause could not be found. So, that task is now done manually (currently by me) at intervals, based upon an intentionally slanted interpretation (to positively highlight any minority user groups I can recognise), based upon the most active editors over the last 50,000 edits at the Teahouse. However some of the most active respondents here have not signed themselves up on the host list, nor is there any obligation on them so to do. Thus, as at 2nd January (according to my Excel spreadsheet) @Hoary, @Fuhghettaboutit, @Blaze Wolf and @Michael D. Turnbull have been the 4th, 5th, 9th and 13th most active editors here, but are not self-signed up to the host list, so wouldn't be added to the random header pic until they do. And just for interest, @David notMD has been the most active recently with 2,829 edits here, and in 30th position, @Kaleeb18, with 214 edits. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, Nick, for calling you a bot! Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Interesting that I'm the 9th most active editor on the Teahouse. If I were to sign up to to the host list, I wouldn't really want my name to be added the header pic until I can get the artist who made my previous Discord pfp (not my current one which I simply just found on the internet and don't know who the actual artist is) to release the pic into the public domain (or possibly the same license that all text on Wikipedia is licensed under if that would be allowed) so I can have a pic that represents me instead of the default. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Interestingly the image currently at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts is Hoary, however they aren't listed as a host. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes that’s cool info. I have no idea what this conversation is about, but I did not expect to be that high lol. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 16:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf After a bit of investigation, I see that another user (who was previously very active here), stepped away and unilaterally added Hoary's name without me spotting it. So, they appear as a host on the TH Header, but don't appear on the actual Host list because they were never added there! @Hoary is it stay, or is it go? Nick Moyes (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, this is just my little comment. I’ve read up on this somewhat lengthy conversation and thought that I should have a say as I became a TH host recently. I like Tigraan’s ideas of passing a test first. I don’t think we should have a template “warning” new editors answering a question because that could come off bad similar to the situation with Blaze Wolf and Looksgreatinaturtleneck. We should just keep it as personalized talk page messages. I think the main thing in answering a question at the TH is coming across nice, because I remember when I asked one of my first questions at the TH I almost stopped editing Wikipedia entirely, very glad I didn’t, because I felt like everyone was mad at me. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 18:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Just my two cents worth, I don't answer very often unless I really know the answer and most of the time I end up in an edit conflict with another host or editor responding anyway so I end up deleting my response. I don't care if anyone knows I am even here. That's not the point and though I love wearing hats I have no use for digital ones. It was suggested for me to become a host here so I did. Editor retention is an issue on Wikipedia and a large number of potential editors leave because they feel Wikipedia editors talk about community and talk about civility but their actions speak louder. I came to the Teahouse to not only learn from others but to also offer policy based answers to questions whether asked by your common garden variety troll or an experienced editor. I have resolved to assume good faith to the inth degree and remain civil at all times even through the harshest of provocations. I believe that is how we will retain editors and how we will build the community as the framework for improving the encyclopedia. I am very glad Kaleeb stuck around after being bitten hard, it wouldn't be the same without you, but how many Kaleeb's don't (rhetorical)? The proposed tests will show who has the knowledge to be a host, which is very important, but being patient and civil in tone and words comes from somewhere other than knowledge. I think we have amazing hosts here that deserve a lot of credit and many more that are not hosts but should be. --ARoseWolf 20:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf: you put that very well. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 20:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf: - You have my vote for President, with that platform. In my mind, the TeaHouse in particular needs to be a welcoming, non-threatening place where a brand new user can ask their embarrassingly basic question without feeling judged or getting deluged with policy links. I still recall how valuable that attitude was for me, in my early days. And I reckon the same approach can extend to the question of who can answer: if somebody makes a couple of errors then a polite, constructive word on their Talk page will be most effective. Best if it is personal, rather than a template - the situation isn't so common that the workload would be excessive.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz, we think a lot alike in this regard. --ARoseWolf 14:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, since you ask: I never would have added my name to the list of hosts, and was surprised when somebody else added it. I'm neither happy nor greatly upset that it's there. I try to help people and hope that my responses are, in general, constructive and helpful. But I think I'm a lot more testy than hosts are expected to be. ARoseWolf resolves to "remain civil at all times even through the harshest of provocations"; simply, I don't. I resolve to think twice before abandoning civility, but that's about as far as it goes. -- Hoary (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary, I appreciate you and your viewpoints. We may disagree on this point but that's okay. I war with myself over my own principles and its a daily choice for me to live by them. Ultimately I do but I don't share your experiences nor do I see everything exactly through your eyes. I celebrate our differences and our commonalities. It makes us unique. --ARoseWolf 14:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Redundancy?

I recently granted an edit request at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Teahouse talkback#Template-protected edit request on 18 January 2022, and I noticed that in addition to that page there is also a practically identical template seemingly for the same purpose:

• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Teahouse talkback and
• {{Teahouse talkback}}

...so I wonder if this is just an oversight? or, if both are needed, shouldn't they both be coded pretty much the same? and should they be mentioned on each other's documentation in the See also sections? and so on, and so on. Any help would be greatly appreciated! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 00:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

They're the same template technically. It's just that {{Teahouse talkback}} is sort of a Semi-redirect to the actual template. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

To editor Blaze Wolf: yes, I see it now. It's a little strange, but then, who am I to judge? If it were me, I'd encode the template with the subpage's code and turn the subpage into a page that gives guidance, as one would expect a project (WP) page to do. But again, that's just me. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 01:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: There was actually a discussion sort of related to that at the top of the Template's talk page ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

can a navbox be added to page

Hi. I notice there are no navboxes on the main page for Teahouse. is there any way to add one? Or is that not technically possible, due to its role as a page for active discussions? Just wanted to clarify. thanks. ---Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 20:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sm8900 Yes, there is a way to add one, assuming there is an agreed need for it. I'm not sure what you think that would be, but you certainly would need to invest some effort in fixing it up first! It's not been used for many years because most elements in it are now redundant, and it had no practical use. See Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host navigation. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sm8900: If I can see how it could be used then I do support bringing it back after fixing it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

hi all. thanks for your replies. I will give that some thought. cheers!! ---Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 14:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

No problem! If a benefit to adding it is seen then I wouldn't mind assisting you in fixing it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I should also quite like to be involved, too, once you've cleaned out the worst of the dead wood there, and identified sensible grounds to deploy it again. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Recommendation to all Hosts: Activate your Homepage tab!

Because every 25% of newly created accounts now see an additional Homepage Tab next to their User page and Talk tabs, please ensure you activate and familiarise yourself with this brand new feature. It's designed to help new account users find things to work on; to see their impact on pages they've edited, and even seek help from a 'mentor' if they need it.

Hosts need to be aware that they can now point brand new users to this feature if anyone is seeking ideas on how to start contributing. It therefore behoves us to use and understand it ourselves.

Older accounts can enable the Homepage feature if they wish. All Teahouse hosts are recommended to do this by visiting Special:Preferences. At the bottom of the main User profile tab go to the 'Newcomer homepage' section. Enable Display newcomer homepage and Save.

There is a summary of this new feature at WP:Growth Team features#Newcomer homepage, and fuller information on the MediaWiki website at mw:Growth/Personalized first day/Newcomer homepage. 'Mentors' are automatically assigned to new users, based on a list that mentors need to actively sign up to. I'm not linking to that here, as I feel any genuinely experienced editor or host ought to be able to work that out for themselves. Be aware that the feature is still being worked on, so functionality may well change.

Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I do enjoy being assigned a mentor (ARoseWolf) to bother. Mostly irrelevant question, if I signup as a mentor, do I lose mine?Slywriter (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter: Nope. I've signed up as a mentor and I still have my mentor as Ipigott ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter, it is impossible to bother me (lol). And no, you wont lose me if you sign up as a mentor. I still have my mentor. We are a community and we help each other to build the best encyclopedia possible. I use the Homepage to look for edits to be made still. --ARoseWolf 15:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I just activated this, and immediately noticed a problem with the Homepage - does anybody here know where to report it? It concerns the "Your impact" section, which purports to show "Views since you edited (last 60 days)". I was surprised to see that a page I edited last night already showed 3212 views, so I checked - in the last 30 days it has only had 1621 views. So it looks like it is displaying views over the last 60 days, not since I edited it.--Gronk Oz (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this, Gronk Oz. I'm going to report this to the engineers on our team. Could you tell me which article exactly you're talking about? And for any problems in the future, please tag me and Trizek (WMF) so that we can investigate. Thank you! -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Good question, there used to be a link where you could suggest improvements, however I'm not seeing it anymore. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@MMiller (WMF): @Trizek (WMF): Thanks for the contact details. I don't remember what article it was before, but it is still happening with the top article on the "Your impact" list. For me at the moment, that is Leukemia inhibitory factor and it shows 27 edits. In fact there have not been any edits since mine last night. 27 edits ago was way back on 01:58, 28 May 2016. So it is not reflecting the count since my last edit, nor the last 60 days. The subsequent entries on that list all say 0, which is probably correct.--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz -- thanks for the additional details. We're looking into this and double-checking that things are working as expected. I just looked at my own edits and saw exactly the numbers I expected based on my edit history. Just a couple things I want to clarify:

• Because the feature counts pageviews since you first edited the article, it's possible that you first edited an article a long time ago, maybe even years ago. If that happened, it would be counting all the pageviews from the last 60 days.
• And this just may be a typo on your part -- it's meant to show pageviews since you edited, not edits, since you edited. MMiller (WMF) (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@MMiller (WMF): @Trizek (WMF): It wasn't a typo - I really am that stupid. The figures I initially gave were correct, but ignore the figures for Leukemia inhibitory factor because they were edits, not views, as you pointed out. Looking at it now, it looks like it might be correct: the top article is TRAIL which I edited 2 days ago and it displays 60 views since then, vs 1,121 views in the past 30 days.--Gronk Oz (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it has to be mandatory for hosts to do that? Many new editors use VisualEditor, and if anyone asks about problems with that feature, those of us who don't use that feature will hopefully know enough to leave such questions to those who are familiar with it. How is this fundamentally different? I'm perfectly happy to remove myself from the host list if activating that feature becomes mandatory, and especially if we will be expected to tell new editors to use it. As a new editor I would have disliked it a lot. --bonadea contributions talk 21:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's mandatory - but I just enabled it and it looks promising. You can ignore the page if you don't want to use it. This is like when Windows came out and those of us batch file coders and command line editors pooh-poohed it, and now I haven't seen the c: prompt (or wanted to) in a long time. Let's give it a chance. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I haven't said or thought or implied that this is a bad feature, and it's already been rolled out so we don't need to give it a chance – that decision has been taken. Like any other feature it will be helpful to some, but not all, people, and obviously those who think it could improve their experience should activate it. My question was based on the fact that I don't quite understand why it would be important for Teahouse hosts to activate this one specific feature, unless we think that the vast majority of questions from now on will be related to it. Again, the Visual Editor seems like a parallel case. It is good to be aware that it exists and to read up on how it works, otherwise we couldn't decide if we wanted to activate it or not. But as long as we know what it is, that's going to be sufficient to understand which Teahouse questions are about that topic, and leave them for other people to answer. --bonadea contributions talk 07:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bonadea Nothing here is mandatory - except agreeing to meet our host expectations - and who am I to suggest you must do something? No, I simply ask/advise/suggest/ensure/recommend all hosts to activate and look at something that every new visitor to the Teahouse is going to have access to from now on. As Donald Rumsfeld might have said, I just wanted to ensure it was either a known known or a known unknown, and not an unknown unknown. It seemed sensible to ensure every host is aware of it, that's all; it's a new feature many of us probably weren't seeing, and which might be relevant to the answers we give people when they ask what they can help with. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, excellent note, and very much appreciated!!! I myself was totally unaware of this new feature. It's not exactly ideal for me to be totally unaware of something like this, if I want to help others!! I appreciate your advisory! I guess it is good for me to hang out here every so often. you just never know what us new editors might pick up now and then! lol! thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I have noticed a small issue with it. Some of the suggested edits it suggests aren't really that accurate. For example, one of the suggested edits I got was to copy edit the article List of Nintendo DS and 3DS flash cartridges. Upon looking at the article, it needs more than just a copy edit. I needs more refs, has some unreliable refs, and is written like an ad. This was also defined as an "easy" task. I would not want a newcomer to see this, thinking it was an easy task, and finding it to be incredibly difficult, leading them to believe that even easy tasks on Wikipedia are incredibly difficult. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Nick Moyes, for spreading the word about these newcomer features! I'm the product manager for these features at WMF, and along with Trizek (WMF), we are here to listen to your ideas and answer your questions. We're hoping to expose these features to all newcomers on this wiki (right now only 25% get them), and so we want them to be as strong as possible. Some of the Teahouse hosts have already weighed in and helped out in this process, and we appreciate it (I last posted here in September).

As you work with newcomers, we do hope you recommend they try their homepage for easy edits, but it's worth underscoring what Nick Moyes said: only 25% of the newcomers have the feature right now, so most newcomers won't be able to see it. You can, however, encourage them to turn it on, using Nick's instructions above. We're planning an RfC soon to bring the feature to all newcomers, and I'll return here to let you all know when it's up, so that you can weigh in. -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Something to be aware of

If you activate the homepage, you are automatically assigned a mentor. From what I can tell, you cannot opt out of this.

• The mentor will be able to watchlist your edits (or something that amounts to watchlisting). They also get a shitload of statistics about your activity.
• At the moment there doesn't seem to be any kind of vetting of mentors; it's just a matter of signing up for it.
  

I'm sure there has been a cost-benefit analysis, or whatever new buzzword they use, about the risk of new editors getting wikistalked and harassed. And of course there is plenty of scope for harassers to target their favourite victims without having access to all that info. But it's a good idea to be aware of what it is you are agreeing to, when you activate the homepage function. Presumably there is a quick and easy way to remove yourself from the mentee role, though I have failed to find it so far. And the point is that you are never asked whether it is OK to assign a mentor in the first place.

Potential comments:

• The risk of any one specific mentee getting paired with an abusive mentor is insignificant.
  • That is obviously true, and if the minimal risk doesn't deter an experienced user from activating the function, good for them.
• Reporting abusers is relatively easy, and it's likely that admins will be quick to act in this situation.
  • Yes to both these things – but reporting is not necessarily easy unless you are already an experienced user, especially when you get the impression that this abuser is officially sanctioned by The Wikipedia.
  • My personal view is that it is not a valid argument in favour of making harassment easier in the first place.

I don't question anybody's decision to join the homepage setup, but as somebody who has been systematically harassed for years, I'm simply not going to flip that switch for myself. --bonadea contributions talk 08:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

"The mentor will be able to watchlist your edits (or something that amounts to watchlisting)" could you explain how a mentor is able to do this? I'm merely able to see their contributions in the mentor dashboard. I can't watchlist their edits. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Watchlisting editors is a new one on me. I couldn't watchlist specific editors before and I can't now. I can watchlist their user/talk page but anyone can. I can review their contributions but, again, anyone can. The only statistics I have on mentees is when they registered, how many questions they have asked on my talk page, how many total edits made, how many reverts, how many blocks. Most all of that you can find out anyway. I have rarely written a mentee without them first asking a question. I think maybe I've welcomed a few but never just out of the blue written them. I have watchlisted a few but that's mostly because I see they are fighting vandalism or dealing with potential sockpuppets and I watchlist their pages for any retaliation as a courtesy. I don't think there has been any evidence that the mentor program has increased the level of harassment on Wikipedia nor have I seen where any specific mentor has been accused of harassing a mentee. I appreciate the concerns and I understand where they are coming from in good faith (It troubles my heart that anyone has been harassed for years by someone within this community) but there is no evidence to support the conclusion that the mentor program or homepage function is making harassment easier or that it somehow promotes it unknowingly, at least to my knowledge. --ARoseWolf 14:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Of course we can't watchlist editors – I explicitly said "something that amounts to watchlisting". It's all in the mentor desktop documentation: is it not true that you get a list that shows you, in one handy table, how many edits your mentees have made, when they were last active, how many reverted edits they have made, etc? Isn't it the case that a mentor can claim any eligible editor (i.e., an editor who has activated the feature) as their mentee? It's nice that you have had positive experiences of being a mentor, but I think that kind of feedback should be directed at the WMF growth team, as it is unrelated to my comments.Most all of that you can find out anyway I think I addressed that exact point. Hinting that my post could be interpreted as not made in good faith is troubling, but I can't really do anything about that. Again, I'm not telling anyone to join or refrain from joining. --bonadea contributions talk 15:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

"Isn't it the case that a mentor can claim any eligible editor" we can yes. But usually you have no reason to. Technically I could claim RoseWolf as my mentee if I wanted to. But I'm not stupid. Also, it says this about claiming a mentee, "The action will be successful even in cases the user didn't have any mentor set previously. However, it does not enable the homepage for the users: they have to enable it." ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

That's beside the point, since you and other actual GF editors are not part of the potential problem – you are neither stupid nor a serial harasser. What's the reason for adding the final sentence? I did refer to that fact in the post you are replying to. --bonadea contributions talk 16:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

You mean I can find out information similar to when I hover over the username of any editor, hover over 'user', and look at their contributions (which includes when they were last active), but I have to go to the inconvenience of going somewhere else specific to get that information? Really not seeing the issue. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

That's nice. --bonadea contributions talk 16:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Bonadea, I could likewise say your concerns over potential harassment from this function should be directed at the WMF growth team but I happen to believe you should be able to ask them at any relevant venue which includes this one. My comments were in direct response to your statements and I find it troubling that you could look at what I said and think that they hint you said anything in bad faith when I expressly said the opposite but, like you have stated, I can't do anything about your perception. I can assure you though that my comments were made in good faith in response to your good faith concerns and I encourage you to raise your concerns at every available venue because the last thing I want is someone being harassed using a function or tool meant to encourage editor retention, growth and development. --ARoseWolf 16:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not... ffs, I give up. I'm very pleased that you have had a positive experience. --bonadea contributions talk 16:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

My only intention with my first post above was to mention some things about how the new homepage tab functions, because I was surprised when I read up on that. You know, information sharing, like we are supposed to be doing in Wikipedia. If the information is incorrect, that should be addressed, but arguing about the validity of my perception isn't particularly useful. If other editors don't see it as a potential problem for them, then all is well, and they are not hurt by having a little more info about what happens when they activate the homepage. If they should agree with me, then they might decide not to activate it. --bonadea contributions talk 17:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Bonadea -- thank you for bringing up this point about potential harassment through the mentor features. I think it is a valid concern, and I'm glad you're thinking about it. We on the Growth team have thought and worried along similar lines as we built the Special:ClaimMentee feature and the Special:MentorDashboard feature, and we even discussed the potential for harassment with the foundation's Trust and Safety team.

Firstly, you're right that it is possible for mentors to closely follow their mentees' edits through Recent Changes (which is sort of like watchlisting a mentee's edits). On the mentor dashboard, you can "star" a mentee, meaning that they will always appear in the list on that page. And then in Recent Changes, you can use filters called "Your starred mentees" and "Your unstarred mentees" to show the edits of those mentees -- it would be like visiting the Contributions pages of your various mentees, but with all that info from multiple mentees in the one feed.

There's are a few reasons that we've proceeded as we have, and a few things we've implemented as safeguards:

• Firstly, we haven't heard any accounts of harassment from bad-faith mentors across any of the Wikipedias, all of which have this feature. The feature has existed for nearly three years with 55,000 questions asked. Though there may be unreported cases of harassment, we think that harassment through the feature, if it happens at all, is very rare.
• Secondly, all the information that the mentor dashboard and Recent Changes displays is already accessible publicly, but as you point out, these features make it easier and faster to find it.
• Mentor signup list
  • Because the mentor signup list is public, mentors can watchlist the signup page to keep an eye on which other users sign up as mentors, and could collectively decide to remove users who give them concern.
  • Most wikis have chosen to protect their mentor signup pages. Here on English Wikipedia, it's extended confirmed protected. This tends to prevent bad-faith newcomers from polluting the list.
  • Volunteers on this wiki have talked about how we might monitor and control signups more closely. You can see that conversation here.
• Mentors can only see their own mentor dashboard and see the activity of their own mentees in Recent Changes. I can tell that you know that, but I just wanted to point it out to say that we consciously decided not to make it simple for one mentor to see the list of mentees of another mentor.
• With Special:ClaimMentee, the previous mentor gets a notification if someone claims their mentee. So if a bad-faith mentor claimed a mentee away from a good-faith mentor, that good-faith mentor might think, "hey, wait a minute -- why is this person claiming my mentees?" and then investigate. Mentees also get a notification if they are claimed, so they can't be claimed quietly without noticing.
• We're currently working on an ability that would allow a user to opt-out of mentorship. If they do this, they will get unassigned from their mentor, so they would no longer show up on the mentor dashboard or in the Recent Changes filter.

@Martin Urbanec (WMF) is the engineer who has been working on all these features. Martin, is there anything that needs to be corrected or that I forgot?

@Bonadea -- I'm sorry to hear that you've experienced harassment. Given your experience, I definitely want to know if you think what's listed above would help, and if you have any other ideas to make mentorship safer. MMiller (WMF) (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Having cooled off slightly, I guess I should respond; most of the points you make are things I was aware of (it was reading the conversation on monitoring signups that prompted my post). I'm not part of the target group, and my opinions represent a minority of one person. That being said, I'm pleased to see that you are working on a way to opt out, and I think it is imperative that that ability should be part of this scheme from the start – it is much more important than having a Claim Mentee function. As editors, we have to assume good faith, but tool makers have to assume bad faith and make sure that there are safeguards in place. It's good that EC is required to add one's name to the mentor list, anyway. I'm sure that for most editors who participate, experienced or new, the feature will be a positive or at least a not-negative change. --bonadea contributions talk 13:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Another Announcement: Reply Tool roll-out imminent

In case anyone's not yet tried the really useful Reply Tool, this announcement at WP:VPT indicates it will be rolled out to all logged-in and logged-out users from 7th February. It will not be available to mobile users, and is an opt-out features; everyone will see it, but they can choose to disable it.

(Addendum: Please note that my post about the new Homepage Tab (immediately above this one) has been updated. It is currently offered by default to 1 in 4 new user accounts - not all users, as I initially stated. But it seems set for a higher roll-out soon.) Nick Moyes (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I thought this had already rolled out lol. I've been using it since I discovered it because of how useful it is. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I got caught out the other week when I forgot, and told someone at the Teahouse to "just click the 'Reply' button and you don't have to type your signature." Someone jumped on me and said "What 'Reply' button?" Oops! I'm keeping a running list of all the settings I notice that differ from what the new user sees over at one of my training accounts (User:NM Demo) if you're interested. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Might check that out later. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

That's so helpful, Nick Moyes. With your permission I will point to this account experienced editors who want to see a quick list of how to enable these functions so they can see them. Thanks! --ARoseWolf 14:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf Feel free. I can't stop you! Nick Moyes (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Teahouse userbox

Chocolate cake and tea for making that userbox!

I made a userbox Hey everyone, I made a userbox!

This user is a host of the
Teahouse.

 Copperwidth (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

hi Copperwidth (talk) Copperwidth (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Ooh that's actually a really nice looking userbox! I would suggest changing "Member" to host though. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well done, Copperwidth. I remember making my first one and was quite chuffed, too. I should perhaps point out that we don't actually have 'members' here - just users, visitors, helpers, editors and, of course, hosts - so perhaps it would have been better to have kept it in your sandbox and deploying it from there, rather than putting it into Template space where others may edit it. I worry a bit that it might mislead people if they see it and try to use it. What do you think? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Copperwidth: Nice! How about a parameter that would allow people to choose whether they want to say "helper at" or "host at" the Teahouse? GoingBatty (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Copperwidth, nice job at making the userbox. It's interesting that we didn't have that userbox until now, and that is greatly appreciated! Severestorm28 00:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Severestorm28: {{Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Userbox}} also exists. GoingBatty (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

...and see other options at WP:Teahouse/Host lounge/Templates#Teahouse userboxes ! Nick Moyes (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you nick for the cake and tea!  Copperwidth (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Copperwidth: You're very welcome, but don't get too hung about playing around behind the scenes. You've only seem to have made 17 mainspace edits out of 164 since you started. It's important to get the balance right, though you seem to be getting the hang of things OK. BTW: I've added yours to our list of available templates (see above). I reckon the green could be toned down a bit if you wanted to, or made to match the Teahouse more. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

We all go through a userbox phase at least once. Panini!^🥪 01:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest moving Template:Teahouse userbox to Template:User Teahouse Host, or something similar. Userboxes in the template namespace are supposed to start with "User" according to Wikipedia:Userboxes#Syntax. If no one has any objections I'll move it in a bit. ― Levi_OP^Talk 01:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Levi OP: That's interesting, but makes sense that I haven't heard of that since usually people make their userboxes in a user subpage. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved it since no one has objected. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Copperwidth: I've had an idea that I'd like to put to you. We don't nowadays have a single userbox that non-hosts can deploy. All the ones we do have are for experienced editors who have already signed themselves up as a Host. So how about making yours into one for those who are not? Something along the lines of "This user enjoys helping out at the Teahouse" or, better still: "This user likes visiting the Teahouse" - which covers both users who ask questions and newish helpers. What do you think? Nick Moyes (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Just a note - I was gonna move the template and change the name as I stated above, but will hold off until what the userbox actually says is solidified. I agree with everything that Nick said and think that doing something like "This user is a frequent Teahouse visitor" would be good. ― Levi_OP^Talk 14:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

If it needs to be moved later on that shouldn't cause too many issues. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Copperwidth: I love the userbox, well done. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 20:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

From the WikiProject desk at The Signpost

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

1.  – Qwerfjkltalk 21:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
2.  – ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 22:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
3.  – FormalDude talk 19:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
4.  – Cullen328 (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
5.  – {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
6.  – Nick Moyes (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
7.  – Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 20:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
8.  – Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545}
9.  – Celestina007 (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
10.  – Panini!^🥪 17:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
11.  – GeraldWL 17:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

and more, on to infinity! If you'd like to participate, feel free to add another bullet point and ping me below. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Going forward, each participant receives a wikilink to the interview workspace questions about the project's work, problems and achievements. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 19:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm willing to sign up, however I would like to know what I would be asked so that I can be sure I can answer question I'm asked. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I’m with Blaze, I’m totally interested though. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 20:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Blaze Wolf and @Kaleeb18! You can take a look at the questions at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/WikiProject report. You don't need to answer all of them, and feel free to suggest improvements to them or additional questions! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok Cool. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 21:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@EpicPupper: I'm a little unclear what's expected of us right noe. There are a number of rows labelled 'Example' under each question. Are you expecting each of us to complete one row per question, and to sign it? Or are you asking at this stage for suggestions for other questions you might want to ask us all? Sorry to be so thick! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes, Qwerfjkl, ThadeusOfNazereth, FormalDude, Cullen328, Sdkb, Kaleeb18, and Blaze Wolf: Sorry for any potential confusion. I've finalized the questions now at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/WikiProject report; please answer them at your earliest convenience. You do not need to answer all of the questions. For the first question that you answer, please link to your user page; for any later questions, you do not need to link to it. For questions that you choose to answer, you should replace "Example" with your name. You do not need to sign it. Sorry for the straightforwardness! Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 02:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to be cutting some of the more similar answers for clarity, in order to add a few more questions and to allow even more people to participate I hope I'm not going to offend anyone by doing this. Everyone's answers are appreciated! I've also started lightly copyediting answers and adding links to them.

@Jtmorgan and @Celestina007, would you perhaps like to participate in the interview? It would be interesting to include your perspectives.

For anyone else that's maybe reading this, if you're interested in participating and have a unique viewpoint you'd like to share, please reply here and ping me!

I think that's all I have for now, 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@EpicPupper: Do you mind if I answer the new questions you added? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf Sure. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• EpicPupper, sure, count me in. Furthermore Blaze Wolf & Kaleeb18 could you please remove the extra {{dash}}? Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Celestina007: I'm confused as to what you mean by "Extra dash". ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  Oh you're referring to the dash next to the number for our names. Yep I can do that. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, probably didn’t appear disjointed for desktop users but in mobile format (or for mobile users) it made the entries appear a little disorganized, thanks for sorting that out. Celestina007 (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for doing it for me Blaze Wolf. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 20:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Me entering if that's okay. GeraldWL 17:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  Sounds great! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Introductions

@Qwerfjkl, ThadeusOfNazereth, FormalDude, Cullen328, Sdkb, Nick Moyes, Kaleeb18, Blaze Wolf, Celestina007, Panini!, and Gerald Waldo Luis: Is there a particular way that you would like me to introduce you in the "lead"? If not, I will use a combination of tenure on Wikimedia, activity at the Teahouse, or other contributions. Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 22:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• I have no particular preference. ― Qwerfjkltalk 22:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Me neither. Celestina007 (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• As you wish. Cullen328 (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• As with the others, I don't really care. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• I have a GoFundMe you can link to. Panini!^🥪 23:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  Could you link that for me here? Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 23:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  Oh! Sorry, that was merely a joke. Panini! • 🥪 18:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Surprise me. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 23:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• I'll let you say whatever you wish. But (if it helps) you're welcome to describe me as a retired museum natural sciences curator who's has been on wiki for 11 years, active at the Teahouse for the last 5 years and proud to have been an admin for the last two. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Nothing special about me, so just use the latter option. Curious to see how I am encapsulated. GeraldWL 04:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Ditto for me. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion at WP:Signatures

I've noticed that a lot of people are recommending users to go to WP:CUSTOMSIG when new users ask about signatures, and this has caused some issues/confusion. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Signatures § "Customizing your signature" section issues and I think it's relevant to hosts of the Teahouse. Thanks, ― Levi_OP^Talk 17:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I usually also just say that if they want a custom signature to ask you since you made mine and a few others. So you're basically just my go to guy for when people ask how to make a signature custom. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Same here. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 14:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Reply Tool: rollout slightly delayed

The rollout of the Reply Tool as an 'opt-out- feature to every single desktop user on English Wikipedia was initially intended for 7th February 2022. However, after discussions at WP:VPP, its rollout has been held back for a short while so that as many users as possible can be made aware of this feature, and for brief explanatory notes to be provided on Help pages and for users of other help fora to be made aware of it.

This new section about the new Reply Tool has been added to Help:Talk pages. Any suggestions for other pages where a link to it is needed would be most welcome. Thanks Nick Moyes (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. I found (by accident) today that it has already been activated on Commons on their Talk Pages, so anyone who wants to see how it works can use it there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull It's on most Wikis already. I've been using it for months here on en-wiki as it has been available as a beta feature for anyone who chooses to activate it via their Preferences. In fact, I'm replying to you with it right now. (no signature needed - it's done automatically, plus a live WISYWYG preview box beneath where I'm typing so I can see if any of my links have been typed incorrectly.!) Nick Moyes (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Question, what does WISYWYG mean? I do indeed use that though to preview things. I'm so glad that I can use the reply tool now. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Blaze Wolf WYSIWYG; WP:WHAAOE but not always typos. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh it was just a typo lol. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Oops. Whilst I Shout You Will Yell Gently Nick Moyes (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

"Ooops!" -- Panini!^🥪 19:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh lol I was like hmm this reply tool seems interesting but Ive been using it since day one lol. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 20:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Growth Team Features; we need mentors!

You all may have heard about the Growth Team Features in the past on this talk page, so I won't go into it too deep. One of these new features is a mentorship program, where new users have access to an assigned mentor that they can ask questions to specifically. In a way, it's like the Teahouse, only on your talk page and you're the only host. Currently, this feature is given to 2% of new users, but we plan on bumping this percentage up to 10% in the near future. To lessen the load on our current mentors, I'm reaching out here to see if any uninvolved hosts would be interested in signing up as one. The workload is relatively small; I receive four questions monthly on average, all of which were simple questions that aren't anything you already see at the Teahouse. If this does strike you curious, you can sign up here. Thanks! Panini!^🥪 15:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Panini!: I am prepared for the meteor shower of questions. At least I think. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 09:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@AssumeGoodWraith Please don't take this amiss, but I've noticed how quite a few of your recent replies at the Teahouse have been quite abrupt and to the point. They're not in any way incorrect, but you might like to think about easing in a little warmth and welcome with your initial responses to a mentee's question in order to give them the encouragement they need to continue. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Panini!: Are you a WMF employee, or does the growth team include volunteer editors as well? --bonadea contributions talk 18:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Bonadea, I, alongside others (such as Nick Moyes, Blaze Wolf, Xaosflux), help the WMF employees working on this feature by giving ideas, concerns, and support. We discuss future plans of rollout on the growth team talk page. If you're interested, we'd appreciate your input! And, *cough*signupasamentor*cough*. Panini! • 🥪 13:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Problems with Facebook

Every now and then the Help Desk and Teahouse get questions about Facebook, and the usual answer is to tell people to go to Facebook's equivalent of a help desk. I have had little or no response to any questions I asked here. That's my experience, but I wonder how many people are not finding help by asking Facebook for help. I had a problem with a new account there a year or so ago and tried every possible way to get them to resolve the problem, including snail mail, and nothing was done. To be specific, I have several Facebook friends with more than one account and I saw nothing wrong with doing that, except they blocked me from doing anything until I followed a very specific procedure involving a cell phone which I was unable to complete. It ended with an email from Facebook saying that because I took too long to respond there would be no appeal of their decision. I can't even tell you how many ways I tried to get them to help me within the time I had. People can post the link I provided and hope for results, but I would say no one on any Help Desks here should be giving people any kind of hope that Facebook cares or will do anything. To give people some kind of hope, perhaps they should refer people to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing and hope someone there has an idea.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 00:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee If someone comes to the Teahouse and says they have a problem with Facebook, none of us are ever likely to advise doing anything other than attempting to deal with Facebook via its Help pages - no matter how futile that would be (or simply to Google the issue and see what innumerable 3rd-party discussion fora about Facebook might turns up). Unless you can provide a link to a specific example of a really helpful answer at Reference desk/Computing about dealing with Facebook, I certainly wouldn't ever point anyone there to get resolution. It's clear to me that they feel the same way. This post is really rather off-topic for the Teahouse, but I am sorry to learn you've had serious issues with another platform. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Should I advise people coming here seeking help with Facebook to disable their Facebook account instead and abandon using the website because they don't give a fuck? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 01:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Not necessarily. While that would probably be a good choice, some people don't want to get rid of their Facebook account. The best choice would probably be to just tell users to complain to Facebook about, while also noting some users haven't had a good experience with that. Regardless, Wikipedia cannot help people with Facebook whatsoever. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not Facebook's technical support team is reliable is beyond our scope. There are forums (which can be found with a Google search) where asking that is better suited. Allowing these questions on the reference desk is likely to change the reference desk from one that asks coding and other computer-related questions to banal tech support issues. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking the reference desk people might know about these forums. One of them pointed me to a Microsoft forum that has been quite helpful. Before COVID I didn't even think of going to Google, And you can read the rest if you want. but once I had faster Internet I should have realized that was an option for a lot of things. There was a time at home when I wouldn't use Google so that I wouldn't go to any unfamiliar sites that might cause problems, and going to any new site meant waiting and waiting and waiting, if I got there at all. When I couldn't go to libraries for several months, I had to get over the idea I couldn't use Google, which came naturally to me if I wasn't at home.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Format now missing Auto-links?

Missing 3 related topics shown at page bottom: Clickable Headers for associated Wikipedia subject(s)??

I've some wide & various internet issues recently; Trying to rule IN/OUT on my end in event this is new Wikipedia format...

Thanks Jaebond007 (talk) 05:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jaebond007 Sorry, but I am not at all clear what you are asking. Could you explain more precisely what the issue is, please? Nick Moyes (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jaebond007 @Nick Moyes: I believe you are referring to the related articles, that appears on mobile at the bottom of an article. This only appears in mainspace pages. ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Worried I still had an "uninvited friend" logging, flogging & @!$! me ;-0 Jaebond007 (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Missing access to archives for main page

Where is the access to the archives for the main page? The code is there, but the links and search functions are not visible. -- Valjean (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: Uh.. right below the Table of Contents? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Duh! For some reason I was looking in the header area, where it's usually located on talk pages. -- Valjean (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Tbh I did the exact same thing but scrolled down further and there it was. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Easy access to the tearoom in other languages

I have in the past encountered difficulties finding the Tearoom in other languages (also due to the sometimes sensible differences in its name). Would it be possible to use the translation feature for it and other help pages? I think it would really simplify things...
Llaaww (talk•contribs) 16:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
(By the way, I mean to do so using WP:ILL#Local Links... I forgot to specify above) Llaaww (talk•contribs) 16:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Llaaww Not every Wikipedia has the equivalent of the Teahouse, and certainly not a direct translation of that name. In desktop view, however, you should see a list of links on the bottom of the left hand menu of links, with every language shown where an equivalent forum exists. That should meet your need, does it not? Nick Moyes (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: yes, fair enough. However I (and I'm not alone in this) normally edit from a mobile device and from the app. I think using local links might be helpful to many people... Llaaww (💬|📝) 16:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Llaaww I replied to you on my mobile, am doing so now, nd often edit from it. I recommend using it on desktop view, as I do, where you get all the esoteric extra functions. TBH: The Teahouse is for new users who are editing in English; why would an inter-language link be especially useful to them, and need to be so prominent? Nick Moyes (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Llaaww: I’m with Nick Moyes on this one. I often edit on my IPad and the desktop view of Wikipedia is much better than the mobile view of it, when it comes to editing. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 18:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Can't we have some sort of banner with links to international Teahouses, or something? Not all people with foreign-language questions know to click on the menu. casualdejekyll 19:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Casualdejekyll I'm clearly missing something that you and Llaaww seem to see. Surely, people with foreign language questions will be visiting their own language Wikipedias with their questions, not the English one? If they do ask here in English about an issue on their own Wikipedia, we will point them to it, if it exists. Why should we confuse English-speaking readers with a banner linking to the numerous non-English help fora when we are catering for English-speaking editors? Every single article and Wikipedia page that has a non-English equivalent has links to them in the same place. I really see no need for an additional banner for non-English speakers. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: We do occasionally get non-english editor asking questions here in their native language (for example recently someone asked a question here in Russian, or maybe that was on the help desk, I can't remember) so maybe only a banner with the most common foreign languages? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

That would beg the question of what the most common foreign languages are. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf Yes, I am not unaware of that fact. I simply don’t see enough non-English visitors to the Teahouse to merit some sort of additional banner to cater for these pretty exceptional occurrences. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Nick Moyes that there's not that many people looking for other language Teahouses. Also, according to Wikidata links, there's 24 languages (including en.wiki) that have a Teahouse, which isn't that many (but is also too many to nicely display anywhere in my opinion). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

TBH I don't think it would be useful to clutter the Teahouse with banners; rather, using local links we would have clean and user-friendly links in the language bar...

Llaaww (💬|📝) 11:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree there is no point in creating banners for people who clearly never read them. I've lost count of the number of times someone has asked what the Teahouse is for!--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Changing inaccurate information with no reference

If some inaccurate information is reported as true and then it can find its way onto Wikipedia and then reported as truth in secondary sources even though it is not the case. How can these be corrected?

For example, a person was announced to be on the board of a certain, however this was never the case. There are no sources to say they have left the board as they never joined it in the first place. The absence of them from the board list on their own website isn't enough to overturn the existing information in Wikipedia. How is is possible to get these types of situations corrected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Occasionalpedestrian (talk • contribs) 11:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Occasionalpedestrian This is the talk page for the Teahouse, not the Teahouse itself. Questions should be posted to the main Teahouse page(Wikipedia:Teahouse). That said, if the sources in an article are summarized accurately, but the sources are incorrect, you must either contact those sources directly and request a correction, or offer more current independent reliable sources that have more current information. If the sources are not being summarized accurately, please describe the nature of the corrections needed to more accurately summarize them on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

My mistake, thanks 331dot this makes more sense now Occasionalpedestrian (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)