User:Isaacl/Community

Discussions to improve Wikipedia editing environment

 * Fostering collaborative behaviour
 * Defining community norms of behaviour

Decisions and problem resolution

 * Consensus requires patience
 * Analysis of Wikipedia's consensus tradition
 * Content dispute resolution toolbox: techniques to mitigate some difficulties with Wikipedia's consensus discussion process
 * Problem resolution process overview

Advice
Personal behaviour:
 * Be respectful of others
 * On kindness: being kind has better long-term benefits than un-collaborative behaviour

Process:
 * Address problems without creating new specialized rules, as much as possible

Voting:
 * Advice for approval voting, including the arbitration committee elections

Instructional

 * On wikitext list markup
 * for personal reference: discussion on wikitext markup ideas for threaded conversation at
 * Customizing AutoEd: advice on using callbacks to load helper files first, then core file

Miscellaneous

 * Top ten ways to troll
 * Top ten ways to avoid trolling is a companion piece with advice on how to avoid making these statements

Arbitration process

 * Suggestions for changes to arbitration process
 * Proposal for circuit-breaker rules to trigger the need for a consensus discussion determining whether or not an arbitration enforcement action is needed
 * : discussion on an proposal to change how arbitration cases are named

Requests for administrative privileges

 * Proposal to structure requests for administrative privileges so consensus on pros and cons of the candidate and their relative importance is determined
 * Proposal for new administrators to have a fixed term, in order to encourage them to take a turn with administrative chores, rather than signing up for life.
 * comments on implementation challenges for reconfirmation RfAs

Two-phase requests for administrative privileges

 * Proposal for vetting phase and analysis phase: qualities and characteristics of candidate are first determined, and then a weighing of the advantages and disadvantages of the candidate.
 * has additional discussion on the general concept of two-phase RfAs
 * has additional discussion related to the length of a two-phase RfA

Proposals for Wikipedia principles
The following principles for collaborative behaviour were originally proposed as part of an arbitration case.

Be accommodating to less experienced editors
To foster a collaborative community, editors should accommodate contributors who lack experience in a specific aspect of Wikipedia's processes, guidelines, or practices. As much as practicable, editors should work with less experienced editors to help them improve the quality of their contributions, and seek to preserve their contributions when appropriate. Additional flexibility should be given for edits that beneficially update Wikipedia and are likely to be correct.

– derived from original on proposed decision discussion page

Strive to follow community consensus
Less experienced editors should strive to learn community practices and follow them, whether or not they personally agree with the consensus view. Once less experienced editors are made aware of the bare minimum requirements for their changes, they are expected to eventually comply in order to alleviate the workload of others.

– from proposed decision discussion page

Recruiting volunteers

 * Idea for volunteer weeks: have editors host "open house" activities where they engage potential volunteers for specific initiatives. They could discuss the work involved and field questions, or set up more elaborate activities if they wish.

Technical discussion

 * tradeoffs to support preferences for non-logged in users (also see comments on caching vs application servers, and comment by Matma Rex on cache invalidation challenges)

Data collection

 * User:Isaacl/Community/Analysis of requests for administrative privileges — collecting cohort data for administrators

Managing interpersonal interactions
Shortcomings of current Wikipedia principles:

Examples of some problems with current policies, and discussion of structural problem with consensus:

Self-selecting communities:

On the community providing feedback:

Professional mediation

 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADennis_Brown&type=revision&diff=626294716&oldid=626276983 Discussion thread] on professional mediation


 * Discussion from Gender Gap task force discussion page:

Problems with consensus
See an analysis of Wikipedia's consensus tradition (initially based on statements presented at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Evidence).

From Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Archive 12:

Incentive for undesirable behaviour
From, how failing to deal with unco-operative editors provides an incentive for poor behaviour instead of desired behaviour:

From, how better dispute resolution is needed to encourage collaborative behaviour:

Also see.

Problems with multi-threaded conversation
Discussion thread on Wikipedia talk: Requests for adminship:

Discussion thread on Wikipedia talk: Requests for adminship:

Problem with how Wikipedia closers determine outcomes
Discussion thread on Wikipedia talk: Requests for adminship:

Problems with good-faith editors being outnumbered
Discussion from user talk page:

Discussion from user talk page: