YPPedia talk:Editors' Code of Conduct

Recent Changes
I'm as guilty of stomping on others' edits as anyone else, and it's really discouraging to new editors. Therefore, I will change my handling of the Recent Changes, and I encourage others to do the same:
 * I will use the Enhanced Recent Changes (under your Preferences)
 * I will start reviewing edits at the beginning of the current day, or even the day before.
 * Edits I make will move the page to the top of the recent changes, and away from other editors who are also starting from the beginning of the day
 * This will consistently move pages that are currently being editted away from the point at which I'm reviewing, giving editors time to make their changes


 * 1) --AtteSmythe 12:47, 25 July 2006 (PDT)


 * From how I read this, it seems a bit too extreme. --Sagacious (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2006 (PDT)
 * Would you care to expand, or do you just not like it? It's a completely optional method of making sure I'm not stepping on anyone's toes while at the same time making sure I hit all the recent edits. Really, all it says is "Instead of working top-down, I'm going to work bottom-up." (Or do you mean teh code itself?) --AtteSmythe 13:40, 25 July 2006 (PDT)
 * When I read this I couldn't help but smile. It's an ingeniously simply, yet effective way to stop the problem. I don't see where Enhanced Edits comes in though. --Angelbeaver (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2006 (PDT)
 * Enhanced recent changes kinda compacts all the edits of an article into one line, rather than show each edit as a separate entry on the recent changes page. It's weird, I'd find it hard to follow.
 * To expand on my earlier message, I just mean that - there hasn't been a whole big issue with 'jumping on toes'. It is something that happens occasionally. I think the 15 minute rule is a good one to follow, and is pretty effective at preventing what I think this idea is trying to prevent. I hate the layout of Enhanced Recent Changes, it sucks. --Sagacious (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2006 (PDT)
 * Feel free to not use it. Personally, I've been hit by edit conflicts at least once a day recently, so I choose to do something about it. The enhanced recent changes ensures that I see all changes relevant to an article at once, rather than seeing incremental changes throughought the day, devoid of context. --AtteSmythe 14:01, 25 July 2006 (PDT)
 * Enhanced Edits groups edits of a specific page together and places it in the list at the time of the most recent edit. So you won't see it earlier in the list even if there was a very early edit due to a later edit.  When the jumpy thing does happen though, it is very disconcerting to people.  It's easier to follow the 15 minute rule when it's a single article.  Other situations involving multiple articles for things like disambiguation are more sticky, but we should do our best to A.) let people know our intentions if it's an extended set of edits and B.) at least try to not be too jumpy.  --Guppymomma 13:56, 25 July 2006 (PDT)
 * Can we enhance the 'Move' page to provide more instructions or a link to more instructions on how to deal with Disambiguations? --Sagacious (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2006 (PDT)
 * A tutorial on how to do disambiguations would probably do well enough. Because not all moves (I'm not even sure what types are the majority) are for disambiguation, I don't think a really wordy change to the move page is necessary.  A short note & link to the how to disambiguate would probably be okay. --Guppymomma 14:06, 25 July 2006 (PDT)
 * Aye, I would have loved that when I was trying to get that move then disambiguate page done. I ended up googling it and reading the Wikipedia way.--Kinocha 14:15, 25 July 2006 (PDT)
 * That's how I learned to do tables and, well, most things really.--Angelbeaver (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2006 (PDT)


 * I've deliberately chosen not to go with Enhanced RC just because I like things nice and chronological. It means I need to work harder to keep my wits about me, but it can be done. What I usually do is open things I want to work on in tabs, then go forumtart for a half-hour. Go back to the tabs, make sure I'm in the clear, and make any changes that still need to be made. Works like a charm. --Ponytailguy 18:19, 25 July 2006 (PDT)


 * I've actually been mostly editing towards midnight (EST) for several days now; by this point almost all the regular editors are asleep, so I can go over the entire recent changes list for the whole day, open up all the things I spot that need editing in new windows (yeah, yeah, I should use tabs, I know), and then edit all of them in succession. It's nice, in that I've pretty much got everything to myself, although it can get...Lonely.  It also causes a few problems with discussions; in a big discussion (like this one!), the entire discussion is sometimes pretty much over within a day (not necessarily fully, but the ideas have often mostly been bounced back and forth already), so keep that in mind.  It also makes it harded to help new users while they're doing something (a blessing and a curse, in my case); I still leave notices on talk pages, but I'm guessing that, in general, my edits aren't seen by as many people when I make them at this hour.  There's also the issue of there being more than 500 edits on the recent changes; enchanced recent changes could probably solve that if I ever decided to switch, but that is one of the reasons I'd like to see more use of the bot setting for mass edits/uploads/deletions (or at least for admins to set all their edits to be marked as patrolled; the option's in your preferences, I believe).  Oh, and there's also the potential downside of being tired when editing (which might cause you to post a huge block-o'-ramble like this paragraph is); if you get tired at night like a normal person, you should probably stick with Atte's morning-editing approach. ;) --Emufarmers 21:30, 26 July 2006 (PDT)
 * I've been going through every day and trying to mark every change that I personally eyeball as patrolled - especially mass edits, if the admin forgets to set his or her flag. I try not to patrol anything that needs work, though sometimes the 'work' I do is simply setting a stub or cleanup tag. I also try not to patrol my own edits, unless I'm doing something spammy. --AtteSmythe 09:04, 27 July 2006 (PDT)

Protection and usage
I'm less than enthusiastic about this page being protected; the rational given, that it is an "official wiki doc" just doesn't seem to add up for me. We have important wiki documents which are unprotected; Help:Contents is a good example. Given the supplementary nature of this list (it's important, but the policies are the policies), it seems like having it be community-edited would be a good idea.

On a seperate matter, I think this article should be featured more prominently; for instance, it could be linked to after logging in, or when editing articles/creating a new article. --Emufarmers 21:11, 25 July 2006 (PDT)


 * It's considered as something along the lines of a YPPedia specific ToS. It outlines what is meant by good editor behaviour and is not something like the community portal or style guide.  Unless you can think of a real reason why a non-administrator would immediately need to edit the page directly instead of starting a discussion here on the talk page, it will remain locked.  Feel free to list spots where it could be usefully linked.  We'll add links after some folks have had a chance to look at it and ensure that it's in good, clear enough shape to be widely linked to. --Guppymomma 21:34, 25 July 2006 (PDT)
 * I'd think that this would be the YPPedia ToS, strictly speaking; I see your point, and although I'd like to see this article user-editable, if it doesn't bother anyone else, there must not be a pressing need. :)
 * While I've got your attention, this article (and several other policy ones) could stand to be sorted in the policy category so that it doesn't show up under Y. --Emufarmers 21:55, 25 July 2006 (PDT)

Let's set the record straight
I've been gone for a few months now, and I've noticed things have changed drastically for the worst, our community is constantly being torn apart, I strongly suggest we fix this by identifying some of our current problems.

Regarding this; since when do volunteer administrators constitute Three Rings' customer service, and since when are they allowed to define when it's a customer service issue, and block on that?

Secondly regarding that block, and the lack substancial evidence to that degree, please note the edit times between the edits and the reversion of the article that was complained about, 28 minutes, this is by far greater than the '15 minute rule' that the user was blocked for, how is that sniping? In that partiular case, the user changed the times to incorrect ones, and made a typo, which once not fixed by that user within nearly half an hour - would signal to most editors that the user may have been making those edits as tests. The user in question could have easily replaced the reverted version with the version she was supposedly working on.

It is not the job of regular editors to toady to the insecurities of those for whom the wiki is an afterthought. No editor should ever have to apologize for reverting a bad change; the wiki is a collaborative project, and all those involved should treat it as such.

It is shameful for our Administrators to stoop to the level of begrudging our most helpful and productive editors to appease some false sense of customer service: A wiki exists for the purpose of spreading information, and unproductive edits should be reverted swiftly and without warning. Those in the editor community should not be punished because outsiders do not take the time to learn the proper rules of conduct for wiki editing, or even ask for assistance.

Wikipedia's guideline, '5 pillars', mentions being bold when editing. Being bold does not mean making messy edits and apparently leaving them - but it does mean fixing things when they appear to have been messed up a bit.

We need to sort this, starting with some answers. --Sivius 15:58, 29 July 2006 (PDT)


 * If you'd like to discuss the ban or have any complaints or concerns about administrators behaviour, please contact Eurydice, the WikiOM. --Featherfin 17:14, 29 July 2006 (PDT)


 * I'd like to strengthen our community of editors, and bring everybody to an equal level within that community. I have tried contacting Eurydice, I was ignored, thus I'm raising my issues publically. --Sivius 17:35, 29 July 2006 (PDT)
 * /em shrugs... this policy was developed as a response to a number of customer service complaints, both publically on the YPP forums and in private to administrators and OceanMasters, about the attitudes and editing styles of certain users. We aren't defining "customer service issue", we're looking at the evidence, speaking to the OceanMasters, and determining that things like reverting an edit someone's still working on, thirty seconds after they made it, without any explaination or justification, ESPECIALLY if that person is new to the YPPedia, is at best confusing, at worst downright offputting.


 * You say you want to strengthen the community. The community exists beyond the perhaps 20 regular editors, and there's a number of reasons why that number has been extremely static for the last few months, some of which we hope to address with this new policy. Please remember this.


 * Furthermore, this is not an approiate forum to discuss specific bans or suspensions. Take those up with Eurydice and only with Eurydice. If Eurydice is unresponsive or not responsive to your satisfaction, Artemis would love to hear from you. Support Form --Ponytailguy 18:06, 29 July 2006 (PDT)


 * Without discussing this or any particular case, I did want to try to address the five pillars. YPPedia is not Wikipedia&mdash;it faces problems unique to the type of information stored here and the size of the community of potential editors. Unlike on Wikipedia, for many YPPedia articles, there are literally 1-3 people who can add substantial content. That means that this wiki needs to be more conscious of the new editor experience. It's frustrating that the simple solution is that editors should use the preview button instead of the save page button, and spend exactly the same amount of time editing the page, but I have no idea how to get that to happen. --AtteSmythe 18:52, 29 July 2006 (PDT)


 * Responding to atteSmythe; I agree, YPPedia is not Wikipedia, yet you reference to pillar five: "Be Bold!" often, as does Barrister. A suggestion to getting people to use the preview button is to "be bold" in spreading the word, currently we're avoiding it until we have to warn them about their recent changes spam.


 * Responding to PTG; I'm clearly talking about changing certain guidelines to end this current "policy" which allows YPPedia administrators to act better than everyone else, which as a community, shouldn't be acceptable, especially with how you just spoke down to me.


 * Sidenote; keeping issues in private, instead of going to the user who "caused the argument", would never help, if you knew of what particular edits were made that lead any particular block, tell the user that you've been contacted in private, tell them where and when it happened rather than keeping them in the dark to what's happening until you can't take it anymore.


 * The first rule in this code of conducts is to always be ready to discuss, which as what I've seen, isn't always the case, I can tell you multiple times where the user was not allowed to discuss, or were even warned that they were about to be banned, and sometimes why they were banned until after. --Sivius 19:37, 29 July 2006 (PDT)