Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 21

Teahouse reverted to two days ago
This edit this morning seems to have restored the page to two days ago; but there have been a couple of edits since, so it can't just be undone. Not sure what to do. --ColinFine (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, there was only one edit afterwards, and that was inserting only a nbsp and an IP signature. So I have restored it to before, and will inform the two users whose edits I have undine. --ColinFine (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Reply tool
The Editing team has been working on a new tool to make quick replies easier. I think it will make Teahouse interactions a lot easier. It's not officially available yet, but if you'd like to try it out, you can go to https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisatrice:Whatamidoing_(WMF)/Brouillon?dtenable=1&uselang=en and reply to any comment there. Look for a (blue) "Reply" right at the end of any timestamp. It's very early stages, and eventually they'd like to add a little toolbar and keyboard shortcuts for things like pinging people. (The cool stuff that's currently there isn't very visible, like being able to reply to a comment on an old version of a page, and having it find the same comment on the newest version.) I'd love to have you try it out and ping me (anywhere) to tell me what you think of it. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That looks pretty useful and I think being able to do that without loading a separate editing page would make replying faster. The preview and automatic indents are also a nice touch! A few thoughts:
 * Currently I'm using an edit conflict feature that allows me to take a look at my to-be-submitted revision and the revision that was submitted while I was editing. How would this tool address the issue of edit conflicts?
 * The editing window appears to open at the very end of the section. Would it be eventually worked to open right below the comment one is trying to respond to? I'm foreseeing multiple conversation threads where constantly scrolling up and down would be a hindrance.
 * Not a major issue, but not closing wikitext formats the timestamp as well.
 * I look forward to seeing what the finished tool looks like! -- Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝)  16:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tenryuu.
 * It handles most edit conflicts automagically (because Parsoid). At the moment, I believe that if it can't handle it, it just gives you an error message.  The "solution" would be to copy your edit (the error messages appear right above your comment, so what you typed would still be on screen) and try again after reloading the page and/or with the wikitext editor.  I expect it to get better (early stages, etc.), but that seems to be the current situation.
 * The editing window opens where it expects to put your comment. If you reply to the first or last one, then it opens at the end of the section.  But if you reply to a comment in the middle, it will open in the middle.  The idea is for the box to be where the edit will [probably] end up.  (I don't know if that made any sense.  It might be easier to understand if you go back now and try to reply to one of your previous comments, now that there are a couple more comments on the page.)
 * I want to know more about the unclosed wikitext comment. Are you talking about the preview?  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool; no further questions about that then.
 * Ah, it seems to be working now. Cheers.
 * It goes beyond the preview. See the edit I made at 9 March, 18:59 (CET). -- Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝)  18:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see! Thanks for the great example.  Would you like it to auto-close missing tags and similar things, to keep the comment's formatting from "leaking"?  I don't expect them to add that feature very soon, but I understand that it's technically feasible (they would just have to run the comment through Parsoid).  You'd get weird results if you tried to put, say, archive top in a quick reply, but I don't think that people would want to do that anyway (it'd be weird to auto-sign the addition of an archive box anyway).  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , that might work if it closes right before the signature. Would this extend to things like and {{code| . Here   means don't display it. This can be overridden with   in {{yourcss}}. The script only makes a diference on pages which actually transclude Teahouse/Host navigation inside code to hide it by default. Based on this search there are currently 12 such pages, 3 user pages and 9 subpages of Teahouse, e.g. at the bottom of Teahouse/Hosts but not on Teahouse. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * {{re|PrimeHunter}} If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that the Teahouse/Host navigation is ordinarily hidden in twelve pages, but that this script acts to positively display it if you have it installed. I've just tested it on one page (Teahouse/Hosts), and that's certainly how it seems to function. Thank you! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's how it works. Teahouse/Host navigation has a source comment "Please don't put this on the front-of-house Teahouse pages, it will be removed." There are also pages where it's never hidden, e.g. Teahouse/Hosts/Database reports. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

WMF Growth team: structured tasks
Hi all -- I posted a few weeks ago about the WMF Growth team's features and the new project page I created here on English Wikipedia. I wanted to let you know that the Growth team is thinking about a new project called "structured tasks". It builds on our previous work of task recommendations for newcomers, but is geared toward breaking down simple editing workflows (like copyediting or adding wikilinks) into steps that are easy for newcomers to accomplish, potentially assisted by algorithms. Since Teahouse hosts know a lot about newcomers, we hope you can help us think it all through as we design and plan. The full project page is here on mediawiki.org, and the discussion is happening on the talk page. You're also welcome to discuss on English Wikipedia here. Thanks to for already weighing in! -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse page getting very large
Why is archiving set to 45 days? It's letting the main page get far too large, right now it has 138 sections! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It's set to 48 hours; the 45 days is for this talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops! I looked at the wrong header. So we'll just have to live with it getting so long. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , the Teahouse is being advertised a lot more to new users, so it's to be expected. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  17:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I wish it were easier to figure out where people at a page were coming to it from. That'd be very useful information. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell editors who have had drafts declined or have made contributions elsewhere on Wikipedia receive Teahouse message templates on their talk page. I'm not sure if those are manually added or sent by a bot that patrols new users. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

On a related subject, does anyone know if clicking "edit this page" rather than on the specific section resets the timer for archiving? I'm seeing sections that haven't been active for at least 3 or 4 days and they're still there. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Uh ohh... I just posted this, so there's something potentially very widely broken. I don't want to make too big a fuss until I'm more sure of it, though. My understanding is that archiving works off of user signature timestamps, so clicking "edit this page" should be doing anything. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Strange. Before we think about sending in a question to VPT, should we think about manually archiving some stale questions in the meantime? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  22:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it looks like Lowercase sigmabot did run at this page earlier, archiving three discussions. My general approach is that if there's something amiss with a bot task, it's a better use of our energy to fix the bot or make sure it's set up for the page properly than to start trying to take on bot work manually ourselves, which is just a band-aid approach. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops - only noticed this thread, having just manually moved over about 5 days worth of 'blocked' posts into the last archive (diff). This sometimes happens when a post isn't properly signed, though I couldn't see a precise reason on this occasion. (Oh and 's post here reminded me that blacklisted urls can also cause archive blocking.) The bot archives daily, circa 05:00 UTC, and was working earlier today, though it still skipped older posts. (One thread, started 9th May was admittedly still being added to until yesterday, but as the OP has now been blocked, it seemed sensible to move this over, too. I do tend to agree that a bandaid approach isn't something one can do all the time, though for the odd hiccup it seems fine. We'll have to wait and see if this has fixed the glitch. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Update: I removed the external links from that one question with article content. Let's see if that fixes things. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  01:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as to what you are referring to, so could you provide a diff so I can understand whether it was your action or mine that 'unstuck' the bot, and which came first. Either way, it's certainly nice to see it working properly again. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It was . I removed some external links, so it could be one of them happened to be blacklisted. — Tenryuu 🐲  ( 💬 • 📝 )  01:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Defer to DRN shortcode Comment
Hello fellow hosts! At the DRN we had a template made that will allow you to post a directional arrow with the link to DRN. The code is and it renders as deferdrn. I know it may not necessarily be used, but I wanted to put it out there in the event you needed it.

Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 05:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC) TeaHouse Host

Discussion about where new users should make requests for reverting vandalism
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 03:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

iPhone 11 Environmental Data
— Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  15:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Renaming the Teahouse?
Over at the proposal to amend the warning message, suggested  What's everyone's thoughts on this? -- Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝)  05:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. There are a lot of important things to explain to new editors and a lot of complexity for them to figure out. Having to explain the name of this place when inviting others to it, when it could just have a self-explanatory name, needless adds to that pile. While we're at it, I'd also support a concurrent renaming of the Help Desk to make it clear that that's the place for more complex questions, whereas here is for newcomers. Sdkb (talk) 08:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem with any renaming of the Teahouse (if it's really a problem) would be to avoid a name that confuses it with WP:HELPDESK. Although I wasn't around when the TH was created, it seems to be intended to act as sort of simpler version of the HD, where new editors who might (for some reason) be intimidated by a more formal HD can ask questions. I think that's why the name might've been chosen, but it could've just as easily been the "Wikipedia Coffee Shop" or the "Wikipedia Water Cooler" etc. It's a bit unusual for a website to have two "help desks" website and there seems to be lots of overlapping between the TH and HD; so, if anything it might be better to discuss whether both are needed any longer and which of the two should be phased out if not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Good points. The vast majority of editors who end up at the WP:Help Desk ought to be at the Teahouse. I'm not sure how they're finding their way their, but someone at some point needs to go through all the links to there and change all the ones that are in places newbies might see them to come here instead. Once that's done, the Help Desk will be a much quieter place, and I could see it taking on a role as a venue for more experienced editors to ask how-to questions (that role is fulfilled for technical questions at WP:VPT, but there's no good place for non-technical questions). Ideally, this would be the place called the Help Desk, but that'd be an impossible move to make given all the confusion it'd cause and history. Maybe we could become the WP:Help center, though? Sdkb (talk) 05:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The main page only links to help desk and not the Teahouse in the Other Areas of Wikipedia section. There's also guides like Help:Getting started which only mention the help desk, and certain templates will use it as well (such as uw-vandalism1. I think that's part of the reason newcomers will go to the help desk instead. Clover moss  (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just made a request to change the vandalism link. Sdkb (talk) 06:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think part of the reason the Teahouse is the Teahouse is to give it that more friendly feel. The Teahouse has also been around for several years, and I think that there might be a lot of attachment to the name. I know I am, and I haven't been around as long as other people have. If we do change the name, the process might get complicated. There would be people who were only familiar with the old name, more than a thousand archives (would these get renamed as well?), changes that would need to be made to the welcome bot, etc. Of course, changes like that could be made if renaming the Teahouse really was for the best. I think it would be a good idea to help newbies be less confused about what the Teahouse is, but there may be other ways to do that than changing the name. I usually describe the Teahouse as "a friendly place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia". Clover moss  (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, strongly. WP:NOTBROKEN. Teahouse has been written up in mass media several times. There alone is a good reason to maintain the status quo. I was around when it started. The above comments are accurate on the etymology of the name. If you look deep enough in the archives, I'll bet there was a consensus for the name. A lot more than vague unsourced claims are going to be needed to change that. Of course, a formal proposal to change the name would be an RM. There's not enough support here to indicate that would be warranted. Further, the functionality of the TEAHOUSE is significantly different than the help desk. We have bots that send targeted messages to newcomers, and serving newcomers is our specific function. John from Idegon (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * One possibility would be renaming it to WP:Help desk for newcomers. I don't have much of an opinion on whether we should rename it, but if it did, then I think that would be the best name for it. Interstellarity (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Please rename it to Lounge or Help desk for newcomers as suggested above. Teahouse is a rather strange name and I was a bit confused at first. BabbarJatt (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My idea: add a redirect, and/or update the "lead section" of the Teahouse page. If the idea is to get new users to understand that this is the place to help newcomers, I propose creating a redirecting shortcut (something like "WP:NEWBIEHELP") to here, and explaining in the lead section of the Teahouse that this is where new users come for advice from more experienced editors. I think this way we'd be able to keep the name as is but still get the message across. Tenryuu 🐲  ( 💬 • 📝)  19:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We actually have 3 help desk type pages. It is odd the newbie page has the worst title considering its objective.
 * Teahouse – for new editors and a good training ground for new helpers (basic questions and replies).... usually just regurgitating and licking linking help pages...like Help:Edit
 * Help desk – intermediate average editors - populated by normal editors with years of experience. A  place that will help with interpretation of policy and common knowledge technical help that most gain after a few years....like Help:Citation merging
 * Editor assistance – the advanced place for long time editors to get advanced help from editor's with great experience, academic and technical ability. (This place is hard to find - it is generally only found by those looking for very technical information)...like Advanced template coding....one thing odd about this place is new draft creators endup here.... I have no clue how they make it there .....as in were the incoming link is from.
 * -- Moxy 🍁 15:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * (usually just regurgitating and licking help pages): What can I say, help pages taste really good. Tenryuu 🐲  ( 💬 • 📝)  15:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Lol...fixed...thank you...lol.-- Moxy 🍁 15:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't know about the editor assistance desk until just now. That's kinda the role I was imagining the Help Desk would serve if we could redirect all the newcomers to the Teahouse. But if an advanced help desk already exists, the best course of action (and yes this is bold, but just throwing out the idea) may be to delete the help desk and turn it into a redirect to the Teahouse. Then, we would make the editor assistance desk a little more accessible to experienced editors (link to it from places like the community portal where experienced editors hang out) while also emphasizing that it's only for advanced questions and removing inappropriate links to it (at a glance, there do seem to be a bunch of non-experienced editors who somehow found their way there). We'd also want to semi-protect it. Sdkb (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think all three venues have a place. There's a difference between intermediate and advanced editing help. Also, someone who is qualified to help with that kind of advanced editing might not want their watchlist filled with questions that don't require their expertise. So I don't think getting rid of the help desk is a good idea, and I'm sure that editors who are active over there could give other reasons why. I think finding ways to make it easier to help people find what they're looking for when they need it is a good idea, though. Clover moss  (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per . See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Teahouse/Pilot_Report#The_Teahouse_Space for background on the Teahouse. Not only the name, but also our friendly approach to newcomers makes us different from any other help forum we have. I've no objection to working to ensure clarity in saying what the Teahouse does, but I'm not happy that a few newer editors want to rush in and change it. It ain't broken. If you want to fix something that is broken, try the IRC help channel.Nick Moyes (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think it's the name that is so bad. The design does not really explain itself. You have to read through the following text before you get to what it actually is:

"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 36,138 monthly views, 1,310 active watchers       Administration         FAQ         Contributing        Tips Tasks Tutorial Help menu         Directories         Wikitext cheatsheet         Asking questions        Help desk Reference desk Teahouse        Shortcuts   WP:TEA    WP:TH        This is the teahouse And finally: '''"Welcome to the Teahouse... A friendly place where you can ask questions and get help in using and editing Wikipedia"'''
 * The Japanese tree painting is nice too, but what does it have to do with helping new editors? Zen state of mind? Something lowest-common denominator like a welcome mat might be more appropriate. The Pilot report designs, mentioned above by, are all spectacular compared to the current text-heavy design. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I tracked down the revision that added the text header with "administration/FAQ" etc above the welcome graphic. It is only four months old. It was done by . I'm not sure it helps in terms of explaining the purpose of the page or in welcoming, but perhaps there was a reason.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose The Teahouse name and imagery were created in a very thoughtful and careful process by the people who created this project, which has been successful every day since then. Their intention was to create a calm, welcoming, friendly space for new editors, and in my opinion, the connotations of the name are a powerful part of its success. I have been among the most active Teahouse hosts since the beginning. I would be deeply disappointed if the name was changed to something banal and pedestrian, and would probably drift away. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * do you remember a discussion on adding the above help box template? It does seem to be diluting the design aspects that you mention.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you ping the wrong Cullen. I pinged for you. Interstellarity (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * My thoughts end up aligning with those of and, so it's an oppose from me, but I would support making intuitive redirects. -- Puddleglum  2.0 (How's my driving?) 22:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Support with Caveat - what about something like Teahouse / Helpdesk – Chrisvacc - ✆ 01:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

In New here so I'm not sure about this but the name TeaHouse does seem a little odd and I would suggest a change because it could just throw people off. Sport.07GamerDet (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

TOTD?
I saw on a user's talk page and thought it might be useful to add to the Teahouse, perhaps above the ToC. Alternative formatting at and  may be appropriate for inclusion in or below the main box at the top. I know we're trying to simplify the appearance to avoid header-blindness, but the "Ask intelligent questions" tip at the moment struck me as particularly useful. Thoughts? —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 06:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Although I quite like ToTD, and have been amending a few of them recently, some are still out of date, or poorly worded. But many more really quite complex, and not relevant to a complete beginner. Were it not for concerns over using up more space, this might be a nice idea, but I feel its integration here would probably hinder more than it might help. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Nick. The Teahouse is a question forum; trying to use it as an opportunity to teach general editing skills would detract from that function. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Revised Teahouse header -- archive access
It seems to me that some (n ot most, but some) posters of questions at the Teaho9usew would benefit from an easier way to search the Teahouse archives. For the matter of that, some hosts and other volunteers might well also find this helpful. Currently, there is no obvious way6 to search those archives, unless one knows enough to use the Wikipedia prefix search, which is awkward even if one does know what one is doing. Most WP noticeboards and fora offer an archive search box.

I have therefore edited Teahouse/Header/sandbox to provide a version of the Teahouse header that provides this. In the process, I have cloned Teahouse/Host lounge/Announcements/1 to Teahouse/SubHeader. Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host lounge/Announcements/1 was intended to be part of a rotating set of messages, but hasn't been used that way for several years, if I am not mistaken. Currently it is jsu7t fixed text that forms the lower part of the header, so the different name makes sense to me, and allows me to display the change without affecting the live Teahouse until people here have a chance to express a view.

So, what do people think of the general idea, and my specific implementation? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't feel it would be at all wise to add any more lines to the Teahouse header, and would wish to resist this suggestion. The Teahouse header is already full enough with the recently added 'Search Help Pages. If I look at the existing header in mobile view, it occupies 31 screen lines on my iPhone5S; adding a second archive search box takes it up to 33 lines of text! That's enough for anyone! (Not to mention the further 21 lines of instructions I see if I post a question via mobile, as shown in the thread prior to this one). I think a newcomer is more likely to find the advice they need by using the existing Search Help box, whilst an experienced editor ought to know that underneath the Teahouse Table of Contents there has long been a 'Search archives' box they should use. I would point out that the default sort order of archival search results is 'relevance' and not ' date' thus rendering an archive search bewildering for a new user looking for their recently added question (see these results for looking for 'Google' in the Teahouse archive search box, where a 2013 TH question is top-ranked!).
 * The only issue that seem relevant to new users is "where has my question gone?", and we address this by the header statement that old posts get archived. I've also just made this edit to the Teahouse talkback template to state that archiving happens after 3 days of inactivity (perhaps it could be even better worded?). We also have 's Muninnbot which appears to notify some OPs that their question has been archived. It appears only to send a notification when the OP's signature is the last one to appear in that thread, though I'm not confident how selection is actually made. It certainly doesn't send it to everyone who posts at WP:TH (see example message it leaves for a user here). The one comment I might make on that bot's message is that the link to the OP's archived post only appears after an initial sentence containing a general link to WP:ARCHIVE which seems irrelevant, and I doubt any new editor would ever understand, so perhaps this wording and linking could be looked at for possible improvements? Nick Moyes (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, Muninnbot posts the notification to the talk page of whoever started the thread, as determined by the page history, regardless of signatures or last-posting considerations (many posters here forget to sign). The only intended restriction is that it does not notify blocked users per WP:DENY, and it obeys the template. It has also a few edge cases resulting in false negatives (a change of header will cause notifications to be lost for instance).
 * If you believe the template message can be improved, please do so per WP:BOLD. Although this is "my" bot in the sense that changing the Toolforge-side code requires a login I control and some technical knowledge, and that complaints about non-technical sides of the bot will usually go to me rather than the Teahouse talk page, it does not give me any particular authority about the wording of the message.
 * I would also point out that changing a template message might be easier than changing the bot code, but the difference between a clear message and a unclear mess could well be greater than the difference between an unclear mess and no message (in terms of editor retention, general friendliness to newbies, etc.). Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Use of resolved template
I notice that has lately bee adding resolved (and perhaps in some cases other similar header templates) To Teahouse questions that have answers and whee the discussion seems to be over for the moment, often with a summery of the answer given or page to consult. I think this is a bad idea, and I think we have had a consensus here against doing this. See Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse/Archive 6, Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse/Archive_8, Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse/Archive_20 (Where it is said (by ) ), Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse/Archive_19, and Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse/Archive_13. I would gently request not using this template or any similar template on Teahouse threads in future, please. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've been adding those only when the original poster has thanked others on here for resolving their problems, in which case they have not made clear that they wish to continue the discussion and consider the matter resolved themselves. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes but it still sometimes happens that another volunteer has an alternate answer to add, and such a tag may hinder that. moreover, if the OP comes back with a followup, it may be better off added to the previous thread, when that is fairly recent, and a resolved tag may inhibit that. I don't think any benefit from the tag is worth nits downsides. Also if you read through the previous discussions I linked above you will find that idea has been raised before, and was opposed. I also particularly dislike the summaries, which may lose significant nuance. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC) DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I find them easy to refer to when digging through the archives when I'm looking for a similar question that has been resolved to suggest something to someone who's asking about the problem and use that as a suggestion. There's nothing stopping people from contributing afterwards, as the documentation states; if I wanted people to stop responding to something I would have just closed it, like that recent question that doesn't have anything to do with Wikipedia, where further contributions would not have been constructive. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would add,, that unless something is totally out of scope for the Teahouse, and the OP is persistent, I also object to marking a thread as closed. But I've perhaps said enough for now, let's see if others have a view. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I generally feel the same, and felt that in that situation it was fine. I agree with having some more input. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging thjose involved in prior discussions of the issue. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I expressed my opposition to this practice last July and I still feel the same as I did at that time. Quite frequently, a host will add onto an answer that may seem OK at first glance, and will add depth and nuance, and sometimes a clearer explanation. The Teahouse model is not "one question - one answer" but rather is one that encourages ongoing discussion and different interpretations. The only time a thread should be closed is when dealing with an obvious troll or a vandal, in my opinion. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm of the same mind as Cullen. If the person asking the question wants to add a "resolve" template, then they can (though most probably will not know of enough to do so). Hosts, however, should avoid doing so since it might be seen as an arbitrary ending of a discussion. If the answers given are sufficient, the thread will be archived as is without any further input. If not, then the marking the discussion as such might discourage others from responding. Most of the experienced Teahouse hosts who have listed themselves as hosts might know it's OK to ignore the tag, but someone new to the Teahouse might not.Personally, marking discussions as resolved seems to be something that's pretty low in priority; I'm much more concerned about answers sometimes being given by editors who may lack sufficient experience to try and be helping out and threads that seem to be never ending either because the OP doesn't seem to want them to end. This might seem a bit too harsh, particularly from someone who has posted their fair share of WP:WALLOFTEXT, but I think hosts should strive to keep their replies as neutrally worded and brief as possible, including links to policy or guideline pages where relevant information can be found or further more specific discussion can take place. Long exchanges between OPs and hosts (like WP:THQ) at some point seem counterproductive to not only the purpose of the Teahouse, but also because any record of them is going to not really be found on the relevant talk page where the discussion should probably really be taking place. So, it would be better for hosts to be working on closing down discussions or moving them to relevant talk pages where they can be continued per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC by those participating in them if they want. Hosts don't need to be jerks about doing this, but it can be politely explained that the discussion has moved beyond what is considered OK for the Teahouse and thus should be continued elsewhere. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , as an editor who started answering questions here when still quite new, I think we could do with a feedback mechanism. Although I made sure I didn't answer anything I didn't know about, and (as an added safety precaution) had not seen the response to the exact same question at the Teahouse from a more experienced editor in earlier posts, I always wondered, and still do, whether I am being as helpful as I am intending to be. I have taken the fact that I have never received a pushback on my activities or my answers as evidence that my contributions are positive. I remember a young editor (haven't seen her in a while) who was once or twice told she wasn't getting everything right. I think another new editor was recently criticised at ANI for taking on responsibilities at the Teahouse prematurely. So, going back to the top, I think we could do with a feedback mechanism. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * . My reply wasn't really about any one editor in particular, and you certainly weren't on my mind when I posted it. As for your I always wondered, and still do, whether I am being as helpful as I am intending to be comment, I feel the same way myself sometimes. I can't speak for other hosts, but probably many also feel the same way. Answering a Teahouse questions can sometimes be hit or miss in that you're trying to give the best answer you can that will not only help the OP, but also other editors who might have the same or a similar question. There's nothing wrong with swinging and missing as long as you do so in good faith. If the answer you give is completely bonkers, another host will probably come along and (hopefully in a polite way) point that out. If it's incomplete or partially wrong, another host will probably fill in the blanks and build upon what you started. Very rarely will a host completely throw another host under the bus; so, if someone ends up at ANI and their attempts at answering Teahouse questions are probably brought up, there are probably other more serious issues involved and their activities at the Teahouse are just be cited as an example of the behavior, not as the only example of their behavior. So, in a sense, that's sort of a type of feedback in that if your answer was OK, then another host won't come along and try to correct it or disagree with it. Another form of feedback can come from the OPs themselves. If they found your response helpful, they may post a thank you; if not, they may post something explaining why or respond in some snide way. Again as long as you gave your answer in good faith, you should be OK. Please note, however, getting a nasty response from an OP doesn't mean you gave a bad answer; it could just mean that you didn't give them the answer they wanted and some OPs are never satisfied until they get the answer they want. In such cases, usually another host will comment as well and you should assess your comment based more upon theirs than the OP's. Finally, the editors I was referring to as ones who may lack sufficient experience to try and be helping out are the newish/new ones who first ask a question, seem to become enamored by their Teahouse experience, and then immediate start trying to answer questions asked by others. Sometimes this isn't a problem, but sometimes it is because the answerer seems to really want to help others like they themselves have been helped, but simply doesn't have the experience to do so. So, they might just post some friendly and encouraging but bland statement that pretty much just adds another edit to their edit count. It's hard to fault them for doing this since their intentions are good, but it might be better for them to gain some experience editing actual articles first and seeing how things are done, and then trying to help out as a host. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you DESiegel for bringing this up. It was due but I didn't want to be the one to bring it up again, when it was me who reminded Tenryuu at Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse/Archive_20, where they did not make any counter-arguments, but indicated they understood the consensus position (I am perplexed as to why they are re-litigating the same things with DESiegel above). In the same discussion, I advised them that adding ";tldr"s to discussions would require consensus at the talk page, along with ample explanation of why at least I would oppose. I don't know how they took "Go ahead, be bold" from that. I remember at least one instance, about a month or so ago, when at the Teahouse itself, I voiced my disagreement with Tenryuu adding an update that the OP was blocked. I am sorry, but this is not from a newbie who did not know of the consensus; so just this once, I am going to give my thoughts on this, unfiltered.What I care the most at the Teahouse is that no good faith posts should go unanswered (of course, the answers should be correct if not perfect). Looking at the latest complete archive, I see at least two dozen "resolved" notices, while a query still managed to get archived unanswered. Tenryuu has racked up 1000 Teahouse edits in four months. Most of it is probably clerking, but they answer questions as well. The level of activity in the Teahouse belies its effectiveness if posts still get archived unanswered (I am not saying Tenryuu should have answered a question they didn't want to take, but one would think this amount of clerking would feature either a referral to another talk page when it remains unanswered for three days, or a null edit to relist it one last time. More importantly, I am questioning if, perhaps the sheer volume of these edits is giving a false impression that Teahouse is well-tended after, reducing the number of eyeballs on each question). Although I don't mind the "courtesy links" (a tradition started by someone else; and, on occasion, comes handy), the ;tldrs, as has been said enough times, can't and don't give the nuances of the full responses, while the FYIs about who added the headers (seriously?) are the most benign (although it does take half a second to read, and it distracts) but also the most useless of them. The clerking is not helping the newbies, and any hosts who could not do without those would surely not be qualified to be taking on the questions. Answering a query, often requires perusing the OP's userpage, their talk page and their contribution history, but we would benefit being told that they have been blocked? (a fact we can set a preference to be informed of from every single instance of a user's mention) I don't buy that for a second. The only instance where closing a post would be justified is where the post deserved a rollback but has received a good faith response in the meantime, or if the disruption is ongoing. And I hope that other editors will explicitly indicate whether they agree and with how much, to leave no room for doubts, one way or the other. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As an editor who has been answering Teahouse questions through much of its history, and was active at the Help desk before the Teahouse was created,I agree with all that wrote above. I would add one minor clarification. The post above refers to . It is my view that no post to the Teahouse that asks a legitimate question should be rolled back or otherwise reverted, even if the posting user has been subsequently blocked, was a sock, or has been disruptive previously. I am not referring to posts that do not ask a legitimate question, like some of the header-only posts we have gotten recently, or a hypothetical post which merely hurls insults, or one which disrupts the Teahouse structure, or deletes the posts of others. This has also been discussed mon this talk page some time ago. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, without intending to pile on Tenryuu (or any Wikipedian who is volunteering their time to help newbies), I tend to agree that the resolved templates and other clerking/tidying can be a distraction to the main focus of the Q&A board, which is to be a friendly, easygoing place with only a few basic rules of engagement and zero process cruft. At worst, it can make newbies feel less confident, and less welcome to participate in discussions—though that's clearly not the intent here. So yeah, maybe dial it back. But please don't stop answering questions! J-Mo 15:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping. I'm late to the party, as usual. As someone who, a while back, started to post resolved templates, believing them to be helpful, I quickly found that the consensus here was definitely that it was not, and appreciated why (see here). I must straight away say that I've been impressed by 's contributions at the Teahouse. The recent flurry of templating was done in good faith, but a consensus did emerge in past discussions, as it is again here, that we won't use them, even if both the Host and the OP feel they've fully resolved a particular question. There have been many times when another editor has come along a day or so later and added further comments. If the OP is an IP user, or isn't directly pinged, they might never see the follow-up comment if a 'resolved' template makes them feel the discussion is now over.
 * Whilst writing this response, I did consider suggesting that we might encourage templating of one particular type of discussion: the rare, unanswered questions. That type of clerking could be helpful if it highlights a question that we've all managed to miss, and might be in danger of getting archived as unanswered. But then it's probably better just to respond with a "Hello. Sorry you've not had a reply to your question, as yet. I'm just acknowledging that it has been seen, but maybe it's out of scope of the Hosts currently here. I'm sorry I can't help you either. If it gets archived off from this page, still unanswered in the next day or so, feel free to ask it again (or you could try asking here[link])." Nick Moyes (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I myself am late to the party again that I was invited to at first. I frankly still don't see the logic behind how marking things as resolved is supposed to convey a tone of being less friendly or how it implies finality; if anything an additional section could be added and that problem could be addressed there. I do appreciate ' alternative as I see some questions over at the help desk go unanswered occasionally. I'll extend out to, , , and who also contribute frequently to the Teahouse for their thoughts. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  14:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally, not fond of the use of the Resolved template. It implies a consensus of Teahouse hosts, whereas application was by one person. Teahouse Q&As are not so long (mostly) that I need an officious note at the top to tell me what happened. David notMD (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for that. I will just add that I don't think there was ever any intention by anyone here to suggest that you marking answered posts as 'resolved' was in some way 'un-friendly'. There's nothing unfriendly about that whatsoever. However, by marking a question as 'resolved' there is very definitely a strong implication of 'finality' and I'm surprised you don't see that. It's effectively saying, "problem sorted, move along, next question please!". I didn't really appreciate that myself when I began doing precisely the same thing as you last year, but I came to see that keeping everything informal, where anyone can chip in with additional comments at any time is an easy-going way of handling people's questions, and it's that which helps creates the friendly, welcoming atmosphere. I can also see that marking some questions as 'resolved' tends to imply that all the rest are not yet resolved -and that, too, would be incorrect. (Also, I'm fixing your ping to ). Nick Moyes (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , the reason why I don't see it that way is probably because I've also grown accustomed to the closed templates, which explicitly say "do not alter the content" as the matter has been resolved, and the documentation for resolved does not state that issues are finalised. From what I can see almost all questions usually get answered, though there are a few that don't. If that's the case, those should be delegated to other possible areas to ask for help (which is usually done for the most part). — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  16:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, we see the formal closures in a lot of places like WP:AFD, WP:ANI and WP:RFA where complete closure is intended to be the end of a discussion, with absolutely no further changes. Please don't feel bad about what you've been doing. You commitment and enthusiasm is appreciated, though perhaps not in this particular way, that's all. Cheers Nick Moyes (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I understand. Consensus appears to be not to use them, though personally I'm not satisfied with the rationale given and my mind remains unchanged on this matter until convinced otherwise. I'll take this to be an endorsement of my clerking abilities and may consider volunteering in those areas in the near future. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  17:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Commons in particular is very fond of using resolved templates, and frankly I've never really seen the point. If the problem is resolved, then it just delays archiving. If it isn't, then it may discourage others from following up. Neither of those are particularly egregious concerns, but I don't really see any benefit either.  G M G  talk  16:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge, archiving only looks at timestamps, which can be avoided in signatures with three tildes. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  17:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As someone who is relatively new to the Teahouse, I appreciate providing the link at the start of this section, and appreciate you for inviting me here to read it.  While I value the usage of templates such as FYI and Courtesy link, I am concerned about the use of the Resolved template.  I have seen several times when I have posted a reply that another editor will post another valuable reply in the same section, and using a Resolved template might discourage that.  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 04:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I am coming late to the party (thanks for the ping). I will still defend my minority position, because a casual look on my previous comments might suggest I support the consensus above (which can be summarized fairly as "do not close/resolve any non-disruptive thread").
 * I did not change my mind since last time: marking threads as resolved can have some value because they allow hosts to skip them, but we should not take the risk of a premature close when better answers might be forthcoming. As a result, the only threads that can be confidently closed are those where the OP asked to do X and either someone did X or the OP learnt to do it in the interval.
 * I looked at a two resolved markings by Tenryuu, here and there. I have no issue with either of them, since in both cases the OP agrees that the Teahouse question is exhausted, and no important information was left aside. Maybe those cases are not representative of the whole, but I see no diffs offered in this thread to convince me otherwise.
 * Hence, while I think "closing" threads should be done rarely, I do not think it can never be done, and the examples above seem appropriate. Tigraan Click here to contact me 12:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Archive problem
I notice that in the archiving bot had a problem, apparently associated with the blacklist. I wonder how a link was able to be saved to the Teahouse but not subsequently to the archive. Perhaps someone with the requisite knowledge could investigate? --David Biddulph (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * see Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 34. — &thinsp;J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 05:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like the site in question was edu-net.nl ; hopefully this edit should allow the next archiving attempt to succeed. --bonadea contributions talk 11:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, bonadea.  seems to have worked. Thanks for sorting it out.  --David Biddulph (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Trolling
The majority of people asking questions seem sincere (if often seriously deluded). But a sizable (and recently growing) minority strike me as mere trolls, just seeking others' attention and their own amusement. I suggest an open mind but concision. But remember, "AGF" is merely a starting point: it should be nullified by fairly obvious bad faith and time-wasting. When this happens, hide or (better) delete the whole thread: don't provide the troll with the spectacle of others' wasted effort. -- Hoary (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There was some discussion of this a few years back (although admittedly prompted by an extreme case), now archived at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 15. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That made for some fascinating reading. I'm not convinced by some of what was said in that thread, but my disagreement wouldn't add anything new, so I'll try to shut up about the matter. But threats to block people for deleting questions? I'd better do my deleting when nobody's looking. Yet being blocked would be a new experience and possibly a mildly thrilling one. -- Hoary (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the strength of feeling revealed there surprised me too. I'd be very surprised if the consensus amongst administrators was that an editor who removed a question from an obvious troll or sock should be blocked, but that's just my take. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

So I'm not a host of anything but I feel that not as many people as you think are trolling. most of us (including me) just have no idea what to do and did not realize how complex Wikipedia really is when we started editing. We need help and sometimes ask kind of dum questions. Sport.07GamerDet (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with . Even a sad and lonely little troll serves a purpose if they happen to ask a question that one of our other 6,100 page watchers finds relevant, and the answer helpful to them. I'm certainly happier to see a silly question getting collapsed than deleted. I doubt most newcomers have their preferences set to show blocked editors' names struck through, so I do like to add an 'update note' to a post if I see an editor has subsequently been blocked. Not only does this stop others trying to add to the current response, but I guess it might also show some potentially troublesome users that we do indeed block people if they go too far. As a proud 'Host', I believe we should try to show a lot more 'good faith' towards users than they get elsewhere on Wikipedia. That friendly tone is what makes us special. Yes, I regularly distrust the motives of some editors I interact with here - and am often proved right when they get blocked. But, meantimes, I like to treat them with the respect that I feel the Teahouse ought to be showing every single person - even if it means I might be wasting my metaphorical breath at times. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Unanswered question
We have a question that's been archived unanswered, which I don't like to see. It's at Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1067. Is anyone interested in restoring it to the main Teahouse page and trying to answer it? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll take it. Give me a mo. (Thank you for the alert - I missed that myself) I might reply on their userpage, though. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done see User talk:Jclaxp. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Block evasion in the teahouse
I'm surprised and puzzled by the hospitality provided in the teahouse for admitted block evasion: first and second reversions (both by ) of deletions (by and myself). How does this square with WP:BLOCKEVASION? -- Hoary (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the question itself (not the editor who asked it) and the answers given might be of some value to others who might be wondering about the same thing. I can't speak for DESiegel on this, but BLOCKEVASION does seem to make allowances for cases where there might actually be some value to not deleting the edit. To be fair to DES, the question itself is not particularly all that different for similar questions often received from newbies about edits made to BLPs which end up being reverted or complaints about CENSORSHIP, and is something that I might've tried to answer myself in good faith. Anyway, perhaps DES can clarify his reasons why he restored the posts. Now, if the post would've been more of a rant/BLP violation than a question then I wouldn't hesitate in removing it outright, but maybe the thing to do here would be just to close the discussion (now that the OP has been blocked) and just let it get archived. I would, however, suggest that if the OP comes back with the same "question" that WP:PACT be applied and the post removed asap. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I've been wanting to bring this up for a while. At Teahouse, we need to present an inviting atmosphere. Generally that involves copious amounts of good faith. But good faith is not a suicide pact, and sometimes we need to remember that in order to maintain that atmosphere. Case in point: This, from a few days ago. I'd really like to know why that wasn't removed immediately, especially since the first reply was to note the OP's indeff. Keeping the warm inviting atmosphere sometimes involves removing disruption. Any post that clueless, especially involving obscenities, should be removed, not replied to, per WP:DFTT. He had no question, and the answers we gave to the non question are answers we give at least weekly to real sincere editors, not trolls. If you're not comfortable removing a trolling thread, feel free to let me know. I'll be happy to do it. John from Idegon (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether had bothered to read the posts that the IP was writing about but they were such major BLP violations that they have been rev/deleted. The IP was clearly WP:NOTHERE and their posts at this message board can be seen as an attempt to get more eyes reading those violations. It took only a few moments to investigate the situation and I stand by my removal of their post. WP:DNFTT exists for a reason and it is hard to fathom why DES choose to ignore it and feed them. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I call to your attention Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse/Archive_16 and Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 11 where this sort of thing has been discussed before. WP:DENY is an essay, not policy. I disapprove of it strongly and will not act on the basis of it. I had read the revdeled comments before I reverted the removal of the question, and the later re-removal of the question along with my answer. (The latter, by the way, clearly violates WP:TPO.) But the quwstuion did not co0ntain any of the specific BLP-violating claims that led to deletion (properly). The questio merely asked why a deletion had been made. It was not temperate in its language, but I have seen rather more agressive language and no one felt any need to invoke WP:CIVIL The question here in no way violated BLP. It is my view that removing a legitimate or even semi legitimate question hre, particularly one already answered, is not appropriate, even if the poster has been disruptive. We have, for example, in the past allowed posts from apparently blocked users questioning block processes, even if only to tell them to make an unblock request in the normal way. I call n the other neditors here to reinstate the quewstion and alolo responses, if it has been deleted again.  DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:DENY was not the reason that I removed them. Gross BLP violations was and if you think the IP wasn't posting here to get more people to read them you are sadly mistaken. It seems some of us have standards when it comes to WP:DFTT that others do not share. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The BLP violation had already been deleted and revdeled, so the post here could not draw attention to it except among admins, whatever the poster may have desired. And no I have never felt that WP:DFTT was good practice in general, not going back to usenet days. Particularly in a case like this forum, where sensible answers are aimed as much at other users as at the OP, if not more so. More light is what is wanted, not shadows, in my view. I provided that, and would again. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The thread in question drew attention to edits containing serious BLP violations. As such, it was properly removed from the Teahouse as it would be from any page on Wikipedia. I have removed it again, and pursuant to the BLP policy, it must not be restored. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The items had not been r/d'd when I removed the question nor when you restored it per the log. BTW how would anyone be able to answer the IPs question if they couldn't see the material? More light on the trash that IP was posting flies in the face of WP:BLP. Support the indefensible if you feel the need but don't expect others to follow that path. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I would think we definitely should answer questions asked by block evaders up until a certain point. (The limit being when the OP clearly is here for a fight, or perpetuates a BLP/copyvio in their post, or is clearly lacking in English or competence to make any use of a reply.) I think some of them (probably not a majority) are capable of reform, and the boilerplate block warnings rarely offer a path forward.
 * Now, this might be an unduly optimist outlook. When you spend your Wikipedia time at the Teahouse you see a lot of confused well-meaning newbies, a significant fraction of which end up doing great stuff. When you spend your Wikipedia time in blocking areas (AIV, BLPvios etc.) you see a lot of jerks. So your estimation of what the next person is likely to be ends up tilted by your previous history. I would think someone who asks a question at the Teahouse self-selects themselves into the "assume nice" category. Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Assume nice" is one thing, but sometimes a poster is recognised as a LTA or other troll, and Ghu help us if experienced editors start edit warring to restore such posts when they are removed. None of us is familiar with all the trolls and LTA sockmasters out there, but if and when one is recognised and a post is removed, the editor who restores the post acts as a proxy and accepts full responsibility for the post and its context. There are several LTAs who use discussion boards to gaslight or attack editors with posts that appear to be perfectly innocuous, and if an administrator or other long-term good-faith editor should keep restoring such posts, they would in fact be perpetuating that harassment. (As for "answer questions asked by block evaders", presumably you mean questions about how to get their block lifted; the only possible response there is "please log into your original account and use the talk page to ask these questions", or possibly "I will move this discussion to the user talk page of your original account". I agree that that can sometimes be a constructive thing to do.) --bonadea contributions talk 08:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * When a LTA makes an innocuous-looking post, whoever removes the post should make it clear in the edit summary (with a link to the LTA case page or something similar). Otherwise, there is no way to know the context for the next passer-by. The only alternative would be to assume by default that unexplained removals of content are OK because of WP:DNFTT if performed by someone with more than X edits or an admin; that does not seem reasonable to me.
 * "Answer questions asked by block evaders" indeed meant primarily block appeal questions. I would also include asking why the block was levied, which can be non-obvious in certain cases, yet the guide to appealing block says (paraphrased) "if you cannot figure it out, you're not ready to be unblocked yet". (I do not include post-block rants; we seem to have a couple of "Wikipedia is stupid if they won't have my article" posts per year, which I would be fine removing, though if memory serves they usually attract a polite, cold and fact-based answer.) Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

New editnotice
The edit notice that appears at the top of the page is currently fairly long, and could lead to some banner blindness. I'd like to change it from the current version:

to this streamlined version:

Does that look alright to everyone? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 00:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * That is OK if the user is using the Ask a Question button. If the use hits the "edit" link at the top of the page, then they need to know to put their question at the bottom, it won't automatically go there. Do we have any usage stats on how often the question button is used compared to editing the page directly?  RudolfRed (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * related question: is there a way to have a different notice for when the Ask a Question button is used vs the edit link? RudolfRed (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , Ah, that explains why the "place at bottom" is so prominent. Yeah, a different notice would be good. Even better, is there any way we could perhaps hide the edit button for non-extended confirmed editors? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 03:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I quite like this. Because there is already a nice friendly 'Welcome to the Teahouse' for users on the help page itself, it was probably sensible to leave out welcoming them again to an edit window. Thoughts? For me the original header text occupies a horrendous 17 lines on my mobile phone and two thirds of the screen (when in desktop view), whereas the lower version only occupies ten lines, and less than a half of the screen. There are still some minor tweaks that could be made to tight things further, especially the prompt about about where the question should be placed/appear. By saying Your question should appear at the bottom of the page. it serves to both explain not only will happen if the Ask a Question button has been clicked, but also what an editor needs to do (if they've simply clicked edit source). I'll post my slightly modified suggestion below, and will then report back on how many lines it occupies in desktop view on a mobile. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Just reporting back that my suggested tweak, immediately above, now occupies nine  lines on a mobile in desktop view, not ten or 17 as it did originally.


 * What still bothers me even more is the complex and scary-looking instructional text that a new user now has to cope with, made more complex by the attempt to autosign their post for them. Have you seen how that looks on a mobile screen? It might be bearable in on a desktop, but I could only capture part of it on my phone in one go. There are a two further lines missed off that screen shot, as well as the space in which one types one's question, then a further six more lines of instructions below that space. I am sure we must be scaring off more new users with all these clever instructions than we by benefiting from them formatting their posts correctly. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , agreed on both counts. Regarding the issue of editors placing posts at the top, there is a thread at VPT where more tech-savvy editors than me might be able to help us find a solution.
 * Regarding the preload text, I for some reason didn't think to mention it above, but I absolutely agree that it's become bloated. Most of the information in it should be in the edit notice instead, and the preload itself should contain only the bare essentials needed to autosign. Once we have an editnotice we're happy with, the preload should be pared down. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So, to follow up on this, it seems unlikely we'll be able to find a good solution for the built-in edit button anytime soon. Are we good to implement the rest of the streamlining (with Nick's tweak), though? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So, to follow up on this, it seems unlikely we'll be able to find a good solution for the built-in edit button anytime soon. Are we good to implement the rest of the streamlining (with Nick's tweak), though? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)