User talk:Isaacl/Community/Fostering collaborative behaviour

Focus on the beginning

You propose a dispute resolution system, but when you reach that stage it's usually too late: the harm has been done. If you want to foster collaboration you need to teach people how to collaborate. Online mass collaboration between people all over the world with extremely different backgrounds is something very new for humanity and most people who approach Wikipedia for the first time, and even some oldtimers, have no idea how it works or how to do it properly. It's our mission to teach them. Nemo 07:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

This is just a draft page so far, so you might be better served waiting to see if it goes anywhere before commenting. If it were to actually go live, then they'd be specific discussion threads for refining specific ideas further. But I'll add a remark anyway: even people who are excellent collaborators can have disputes. It won't be a rancorous one, but they just might not agree. Documenting a process to resolve their dispute (as we already currently do) is basically the same as teaching them one way to resolve it, so even if your premise is accepted, having processes aligns with it. isaacl (talk) 08:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, but dispute resolution doesn't scale to thousands or millions of new and unregistered editors, while an effective education might. Nemo 08:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

One way or another, there will always be disputes, and always a need to resolve them, even if that involves trying to educate all editors and somehow getting them all to comply. Fortunately it's unlikely there will be thousands of editors involved in any given content dispute. However there may be tens of editors, and the current documented approach of having a conversation to reach consensus doesn't even scale up well to that level. isaacl (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

How do we teach editors something? Should we use the same techniques we use in RL? As children we are taught, "HOT! Don't touch!" Some of us don't need to touch the stove to take the advice. But some need the actual experience of "stove touching" to believe. One of the ironclad rules of Brainstorming is not to critique input; use it to push your thoughts along the road of discovery. "That won't work" rarely works. ―Buster7 ☎ 12:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, we certainly should brainstorm more ideas around the theme of education (either here if this page goes live, or somewhere else). It just seems to me that introducing a new process for managing disagreements falls under the scope of educating people how to collaborate. isaacl (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Definitive

definitive: decisions should be binding and only revisited if new information changes a key aspect of the dispute

The problem is, even in good (original) decisions without changing of information, significant numbers of editors can change their minds. The same can be seen in real life (both generally and legally). In legal terms, this would be a hyper-aggressive stare decesis policy.

Obviously I can see the benefits - but I also see the negatives. No-consensuses already default to the pre-existing status quo, so that half-way house is cut off. Perhaps a minimum time before the issue can be "re-litigated" would work better? Nosebagbear (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Should this page actually go live, certainly there will be discussion to refine the various ideas that come up. Thanks! isaacl (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Focus on process and procedure changes

As there doesn't appear to be much interest in adopting this page as a general project page, I plan to modify it to focus on looking at process and procedure changes. After that I will open a brainstorming discussion. Thanks to anyone who is reading this for your attention! isaacl (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Scope of idea gathering

A reminder: the intended scope of this page is looking for ways that our processes can automatically encourage desired behaviour, and not ways to enforce desired behaviour. If you are interested in a different scope, I suggest starting a different discussion elsewhere. That being said, I'm content with getting any ideas written down anywhere; we can sort them out later. And of course anyone is free to pick up any of the expressed ideas, within scope or not, and follow up. Good luck thinking up ideas! isaacl (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Just to set expectations: I likely won't do much personal followup on ideas that are out of scope; nonetheless, I encourage anyone to pursue them further based on their level of interest. isaacl (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I've added sections on the main page corresponding to areas that I am personally planning to follow up on. I encourage interested editors to pick up any of the other ideas and guide further discussions on them! isaacl (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

Perhaps "edit warring" should not result in an automatic block, but an automatic block from the "field of battle"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Though I would prefer to describe it as protecting a page against an individual editor. Same thing, less provocatively put. Blocks have a very negative connotation on this site. ϢereSpielChequers 14:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Good luck

Be assured that this endeavor of yours will lead to solutions that will make a difference in the future editing environment at Wikipedia. In the meantime good luck with herding all the cats that want the attention for their specific voiced "Meow". The brevity and succinctness of expressing ideas into a bite sized morsel is not easy. But those morsels will be easier to nurture into bigger community accepted ideas as we proceed. Discussions in this earliest stage only hinder input. The less experienced editor is reluctant to join in. The "stands are full of friendly stalkers wanting to comment but the marching band refuses to leave" syndrome. Ongoing conversations are difficult to follow and good ideas get lost in the shuffle of dialogue. But you know all this. Again, Good luck! ―Buster7 ☎ 14:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Make "thanking" a more public thing

I know we are being asked by @Isaacl: to Not elaborate on IDEAS until later when the Brainstorming has subsided. I hope he doesn't mind But I'm energized to say the following so I don't forget:

• I really like the idea of making the Number of thanks received public. WE SEE alot of the "pressure meter" thing on User pages which kind of supports the concept of "steam build up' which is ready to blow. The Meter is an expansion of the "something is wrong' conversation. This would counterbalance that visually projected expression with something positive. We all wander around WikiWorld looking here and there, on article talk pages and user talkpages and what we see paints what we think is going on around us. The more upbeat things we see the less likely we are to attack the next time we are pressured to "Let off steam". ―Buster7 ☎ 13:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Improve response to edit warring

WereSpielChequers made the following suggestion for improving how edit warring is handled:

Introduce warnings and maybe a monitoring system for edit warring. Currently vandals get as many as four warnings before we eventually block them, but edit warrers simply get blocked, despite edit warrers typically being goodfaith editors who have got a little over enthusiastic and can usually return to good editing, whilst vandals very very rarely become good editors. The usual argument for this is that we don't have a monitoring system for edit warring in the way that we do for vandalism warnings, but it should be possible to modify twinkle etc. It would also be good to have the option of editor level page protection, so individual pages can be protected against individual editors (just please don't call it page level blocking) ϢereSpielChequers 21:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Let's brainstorm a bit on how managing edit warring can be improved. I suggest starting with describing a scenario, how it is handled, and what problems can result. Then you can suggest a way to improve matters. (You don't have to use this format exactly, but it's important to identify a specific problem and how your proposal will address it.) Although this is still fairly preliminary, please start going into some specific details on implementation. To simplify matters, try to separate your thoughts into distinct suggestions, so they can be discussed separately as much as is feasible. Happy brainstorming!

... add your suggestion here ...

This is sort of being discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Partial blocks though the WMF are calling this partial blocks instead of protecting pages against specific editors. I think it a huge mistake to discuss these as blocks rather than page protection, but technically it is the same thing. ϢereSpielChequers 22:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Improving editor interactions

A fictitious article about Ants

User:ImANewbie starts to edit an article about ants. He adds personal claims to the article that ants "smell" their way to food. User:IAmAnExpertInInsectMorphology undoes these claims twice with no edit summary comment. User:ImANewbie returns them to the article explaining; "I watch them on the sidewalk in front of my house." An edit war commences. Finally IAmANExpert replies that insects have no sense of smell and "User:Newbie" must be a stupid small child and should stay out of Adult affairs like editing on WP. User:Newbie gets his feelings hurt and never edits again on WP. User:Expert goes on his merry way and never gives the inconsequential war a second thought. All he knows is...He saved the article and the Encyclopedia from inaccuracies. But what if, rather than insist that he, the expert, was right and ridicule a new editor into submission, what if he had spent a little time working to convince User:Newbie that his smell claim was impossible and would corrupt the article and mislead future readers. What if he guided Newbie to understand the responsibility of WE editors to do our best. Insisting sets up a "I'm right, your wrong" senario. No one likes to be wrong. Convincing strives to create a relationship of education and discovery. My 2¢. But I save pennies so .... ―Buster7 ☎ 15:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Someone needs to be an intermediary, a calming factor, without making either side right or wrong. Someone that can take the combatants out of the ring of conflict. IMO, the important factor is saving the Newbie, supporting his effort (his ACT of editing in good faith) without insulting the Experts efforts. We want the Newbie to stay and to grow. ―Buster7 ☎ 15:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I feel this example is complicated by the fact that Newbie is also engaging in original research, for which we do have standard user warning templates. That said, Morph shouldn't be repeatedly undoing edits w/o any explanation, much less issuing personal attacks. But then, there's also a user warning template for edit-warring that attempts to steer warring editors toward more constructive behaviors before 3RR is violated or such. DonIago (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone have a suggestion on a new standard procedure, or modifications to an existing standard procedure, to automatically get the expert editor to do the right thing? For example, would a standardized sequence of edit-warring warnings, as per the original idea, be helpful? isaacl (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate that there are standard user warnings but the point I am searching to make is that the interpersonal human interaction is more important than correcting the behavior of either of the editors. There are some editors, most I imagine, that will use the templates that are available to communicate. That's fine and works to the necessary order of things. But what is it they are communicating? The expert communicates..."I know better. You should learn a thing or two before you proceed." The newbie communicates... "Who died and left you the Boss?" The very first interaction is aggressive and the result is the editors will turn away from each other and proceed accordingly. I've been watching it happen for ten years. But... what if there was a group of editors whose primary role was to intercede on behalf of both editors rather than on behalf of the Rule Book Of Wikipedia or Standard Procedure. If we do things differently we will get different results. !―Buster7 ☎ 12:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

There are lots of ways to approach improvements, and so if you want to brainstorm ideas on how to encourage better communications, by all means, please do. I definitely think it's worth investigating further. I have been trying to approach this from a different direction, mainly because most discussion I've seen hasn't explored it: how can we make standard operating procedure automatically result in desired behaviour? If you prefer I can take that discussion elsewhere and leave you to shepherd a broader discussion on improving interactions between editors. isaacl (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. That will work for me. TY. ―Buster7 ☎ 12:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've moved this thread into its own section. isaacl (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Isaacl. You could even move it to a side page---something like User talk:Isaacl/Community/Improving editor interactions if that works better for you. The last thing I want to do is to sidetrack your intended purpose. Best, ―Buster7 ☎ 22:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

An old collection of new user experiences

From early 2011. But I imagine they still reflect what is still happening today. Wikipedia talk:Wiki Guides/What was your new user experience

Communicating reasons for blocking

WereSpielChequers made the following suggestion on improving the guidance on communicating the reasons for blocking:

When we block someone for a fixed period of time we are expecting them to return to the community. In such circumstances it is important that the block message is clear as to the reason for the block so that the blocked editor knows what they have to change when they return. Fixed term blocks for unclear or undisclosed reasons should be considered a form of toxic behaviour and an abuse of the admin toolset. ϢereSpielChequers 21:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Who would like to identify the corresponding guidance page (be it a policy or a guideline) and draft a proposed change? Once that is done, we can discuss and refine the change further. isaacl (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Increasing visibility of thank you messages

Buster7 made the following comment:

I really like the idea of making the Number of thanks received public. WE SEE alot of the "pressure meter" thing on User pages which kind of supports the concept of "steam build up' which is ready to blow. The Meter is an expansion of the "something is wrong' conversation. This would counterbalance that visually projected expression with something positive. We all wander around WikiWorld looking here and there, on article talk pages and user talkpages and what we see paints what we think is going on around us. The more upbeat things we see the less likely we are to attack the next time we are pressured to "Let off steam".

Can we discuss ideas for putting this into practice, and potential pros and cons? Does the Signpost's column "On the bright side" (sample from April 26) help address this to some degree? What ways are you interested in working on to make thanks and good news more visible? isaacl (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

It is already public and can be easily collected and posted, see meta:User:Faebot/thanks for example.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for specific details on building reports! Any ideas on giving thank you notices greater prominence in order to encourage a greater sense of community? isaacl (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

(On a side note, I'm impressed at the number of thanks some people receive and give. Clearly a lot of people are doing good things!) isaacl (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Last time (a couple of years ago), when I suggested that users thank administrators more for properly done routine job (such as protection or closed AfDs) several users called this "childish", and it was once later used at ANI against me, so no, no good ideas, sorry.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your bad experience at the incidents noticeboard. Thanks for bringing it up, though: I was aware that such an initiative would have pitfalls like that and so I think both positives and negatives should be examined. isaacl (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments regarding admin behaviour

(moved from main page)

I came across your thread on this topic and was looking at all the threads related to this. While there is a way to do this, admins need to consider a better way of handling things, especially for new users, who are making attempts to help make Wikipedia better for the world. This also led me to some other articles by one particular admin and looking at their comments across all of Wikipedia that come down hard on people. They wrote an essay along the lines of “if a new comer cites don’t bite the new comers then they have been here long enough to know better.” I can tell you that’s not true as the tea house directs all new users to the space training which goes in depth on various policies including don’t bite the new comers. It seems this one particular admin likes to think that whatever they say is law and if you don’t follow what they say or even point out your view (as policies are subject to interpretation users by user) however, this particular admin has a group of followers that are admins that follow everything they say. I think that admins need to understand where a user is coming from based on what they are interpreting from the policies. The admins should also be fair in what they do. For example no one should be changing another users space and users have been banned for it but yet it is ok for one of their followers who are also not admins to make that same change. In particular I noticed it refers to COI declarations. Some users get banned and others in that admins circle (non-admins) can make the change and nothing gets said to them about it. This basically all comes down to admins should be fair, allow the users to express their point of view and work with them and understand their POV on policies and not just up and ban someone. I know this particular admin also banned a user after two sock puppets were created however, looking at their actions in their history log they have not banned other users who get blocked on the main account and then they come up with 8-10 sock puppets and this admin has never banned them. Again this is not how an admin should be. If the policy is in place, which it is, then this admin should be banning all of them and not just selecting a user whom they have disagreements with. 2600:1700:3A62:620:88AB:E296:BD6D:B618 (talk) 07:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The situations you are describing aren't within the scope of this initiative, which is looking for ways to improve processes or procedures such that desired behaviour is encouraged by making it in the best interest of each individual, and so I'm not likely to take a personal interest in following up. There aren't many followers of this page and so you might be better served engaging in a different venue. I suggest you'd progress farther if you can try to identify a specific, concrete change, rather than just "admins shouldn't do this". isaacl (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)