Forum:Alienation of new and IP users

Index → Panopticon → Alienation of new and IP users

Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.

After seeing more than once a declaration such as "Forum:Please delete me" not just in the forums but on talk pages, I thought we should discuss this.

To new editors and IP editors what would you like to see changed? Please though keep in mind such things as the protection policy is as about maintaining the integrity of the wiki's information, and prior to it we had a huge amount of vandalism following new stories.

I know we all make mistakes, admins as well (I think I've likely made thousands of mistakes). We need to learn and move on, or help the editors to understand their mistakes. Not all bad edits need undoing or reverting but simply may need editing to improve them. Rollbacks or undos might be easier, but may not improve the quality.

To admins how should we change how we're dealing with people, what else should we be doing to help? Are we too quick to hit the undo, rollback, protect, delete or Block buttons? Should policy be changed? --Tangerineduel / talk 14:50, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

I would say that yes, you guys tend to be protective of your power and are occasionally rash in your actions. One thing that might help would be a general rule of thumb: when reverting edits, always insert a legitimate reason why you are doing so. Reverting without explaining, IMO, show that you don't care enough about your responsibilities and the other user to explain yourself. I'd like to point out that while Sysops answer to the Wiki Leader (Tangerinedual, I believe), they ultimately still serve the Public. Your job as a Sysop is to make my editing easier, friendlier, and better overall. If you aren't trying to do that, then you are failing at your Sysop position. I realize that it is also the responsibility of the regular user to respect and listen to the Sysops, but if the Sysops don't care enough to really bother with following the rules and helping me, then why should I waste my time with them? --Bold Clone 15:04, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

I think that some users are hostile, I recall that User:Bold Clone has mentioned that he would describe himself as aggressive. Obviously anyone who has had their edits reverted isn't happy, but I can't recall a case in which this wasn't justified. As long as you answer any inquiries as to their misdoings, it usually ends well. However, some users seem to take a reversion as their call to complain. Unfortunate, but predictable. It's only a small proportion that are blocked, and then its usually for vandalism. It's hard to tell if unregistered users are leaving, but I have noticed a number or registered editors expressing views similar to that one linked above. ----Skittles the hog--Talk 15:23, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I will freely admit that I am an agressive and sometimes even hostile editor, but that is usually because I am frustrated by a Sysop who is probably not following the rules (like the vagueness of rules regarding speculation and short pages). --Bold Clone 15:31, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you Bold Clone, we should try and use the summary box to why we are undoing another User's edit(s). I can say, I do try and use the summary box when and I can if I can remember, but on occasions, I have undone another person's edit(s) without explanation, and I hold my hands up to that. Users, who feel there edits are unlawfully reverted, should have no fear of going to the talk page (which in my opinion we need to tighten down on in terms of speculation). When they go to the talk they should be able to have a simple, argument free discussion about the edits why there were undone and maybe even come to a compromise.

All Users should not just read the text, or see the image that is added. They should spend a few moments reading the section around it and thinking logically about it edit, before reverting it if they must. I have experienced this a few times, where I clicked undo, looked at the page afterwards and though "damn, that was actually an good edit." And I will admit, I rarely undo my own edits where I removed an edit from a page (i.e re added the edit.) I will make sure if this happens again in future, I undo my edits.

Some new Users also seem to want to rush into editing. They can make stupid mistakes and a few major mistakes. if this was brought up on there talk page (i.e tell the Users they've made a mistake and pointing them toward the Manual of Style), they usually reply can be "I will look at it later." Which begs the question, "does anyone read the manual of style?" As I have said, I am in the process of making a guide for new Users, which tells them how to edit this wiki, without them having to read through all the manual of style, which, with it's actual length, paragraphs and subpages, is what puts Users of reading it.

We also should explain to Users why we have certain policies in place. Take, for example the Spoiler policy, which prevents spoilers from being added to in-universe articles. Some users, at first do add spoilers to these page, and when you remove them, should it not be common sense, if not compulsory to tell a Users why they can't add to that page and where else they could add it? Mini-mitch\talk 15:32, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

This is already the case, or at least it should be. I prefer to wait until they enquire themselves, and then I always try to reply in a helpful way. The issue is that some users make these replies negative when we should be encouraging users to stay put and help. Of course some will see a simple reversion as a straight off hostile act making them hard to "talk" to, luckily cases like that are rare.----Skittles the hog--Talk 15:41, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I see a simple reversion without an explanation as hostile, be cause you apparantly don't care enough to explain why you are reverting the edit--you apparantly consider it no better than vandalism, which does not usually need an explanation. If you cared wnough to help out the other user, then you would explain why you did what you did. --Bold Clone 16:22, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

I think you either misunderstood or didn't read my comment. When I said they may see the undoing of an edit as hostile, I meant any edit. As for not supplying a reason, I nearly always do except when undoing obvious vandalism. It's not as if you yourself don't revert edits. This isn't just an issue of admins being hostile.----Skittles the hog--Talk 16:32, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

I've been pushing the matter in PLEASE DELETE ME where I first encountered it and I'm glad to see this topic discussion open up. Part of the issue is a vague, flaccid style of writing that seems to have become standard these days -- I particularly attacked one usage in the other discussion about "We will have to do something". I know of no way to deal with that sort of flabby writing, as it derives from flabby thinking. I do suggest that when you see a problem, that you say "I" instead of "We".... perhaps that additional level of personal responsibility will make you think about what you can can instead of just referring it to the group mind in a vague future.

Another is to recognize in your thoughts and your speech that everyone here is doing this voluntarily, because of a desire to help, just like the staff. Don't you like to feel appreciated? So do the newcomers who make a changein an article. The first words out of your mouths should be "Thank you". "Thank you for the editing job you did on this section. You obviously put a lot of work into it. Unfortunately, I am going to revert it because of various stylistic issues. I would like to see you helping out more -- Goodness knows we can use it -- but it would probably help if you checked the style guides at..." Or don't even revert it. Send me a message at my talk page asking me if it can't be saved by a thorough editing job. I should describe my editing style as 'aggressive'. I try to figure out what you meant to write, polish it up if it can be polished, and chuck and rewrite if it can't. But bear in mind, always, that you want the help and that you can be forthright without being rude.Boblipton 16:49, May 6, 2011 (UTC)