Hello! I'm happy to answer a few questions about Wikipedia.

Disclaimer: I'm fairly busy with my research at the moment, and so I haven't actively edited since August 2009, and I haven't been active in Wikipedia user community activities since late 2008. Oh, and of course, this is all based on my personal experience with Wikipedia, which may or nay not be representative of the community as a whole, etc.

There is a very flat hierarchy, if you can even call it that. Basically, you have Administrators, Users, Editors (by which I mean anonymous or new editors), and Readers. Each group is a subset of the one that follows, and each allows for a greater level of functionality within the project.

(There are also a couple of special roles, the Bureaucrat and the Steward. I'm not including them in the discussion here.)

The "community" aspect of WP is interesting and is loosely reflected in the editing hierarchy. In fact, I would consider it to be more of an unwritten social hierarchy, based on trust and reputation.

For example, administratorship must be approved by community consensus via a Request for adminship. Because of this, it is typically only granted to people who the community feels are trustworthy and competent, in order to minimize the risk that the advanced editing capabilities will be used improperly. There's a long-standing warning not to use editcount as a determination of trustworthiness, although editcount is a rough indicator of proficiency with the basic editing tools and familiarity with WP policy.

At the other end of the spectrum, you have anonymous editors and new users, who are distinguished by having a low editcount (or in the case of anonymous users, no reliable editcount). For example, if you were to make a major edits to a page, your edits would be highly scrutinized.

I'll contact you via email, in case you want to discuss this more in-depth. Still, I think the pages linked above should give you a basic picture of how the community is set up.

--Alan Au (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note also: WP:OVERSIGHT, WP:OFFICE, WP:ARBCOM, WP:OTRS, WP:MEDCOM. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I am in hermit mode now, focusing on my own writing. Bellagio99 (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your article submission has been declined, and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Keith Richards' 1953 Fender Telecaster "Micawber" was not created. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer, and please feel free to resubmit once the issues have been addressed. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I see you've posted almost 100 {{you've got mail}} templates on various userpages, mentioning something about a research project. Active research (research that involves interaction with Wikipedia's users) requires consent by Wikimedians or the Wikimedia Foundation. You should contact the Research Committee before continuing to mass email as you have been doing. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 04:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, so sorry...I didn't do enough homework apparently on permissions from the Mikimedia Foundation. I will discontinue contacting editors and formally apply via the Research Committee. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.UOJComm (talk) 04:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I see you're sending out mass emails again. Have you obtained the requisite permission to do so? –xeno^talk 23:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, your you've got mail tag on User talk:Lucyintheskywithdada triggered Huggle's filter. Don't worry, though - your username will be added to the whitelist, so this shouldn't happen again. Quinxorin (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!UOJComm (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You left a message on my talk page that you sent me mail. But I didn't get any mail.

I am consumed by curiosity. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weird...Not to worry; I shall send it again. Thanks for letting me know! UOJComm (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got it twice. I guess I was a little too quick on the trigger. Answered the survey. Thanks. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reminder...totally my bad. I'll go back and sign the posts I just made. Thanks again! UOJComm (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that...I see your bot signed my posts for me. Thanks again. UOJComm (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this question answered: "Have you obtained the requisite permission to do so?" (asked above, three days ago)? Is the answer somewhere at meta:Research:WPCSB survey? There should be a prominent explanation on your user page, or this talk page. When you leave a new message at a talk page, are you clicking "new section" at the top? Johnuniq (talk) 05:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, and thanks for the comment. I should have responded to xeno here as well, but I did in an email instead. The research was approved on June 13 by the Wikimedia Research Committee, and was explicitly given to me by Dario Taraborelli. If you go to the Meta page, you find the "Research project" information box on the right, which was set up by Dario. If you'd like, I can post the actual language he sent to me on the Meta page...the Research Committee did not suggest that though. I am happy to do whatever is necessary to assure the community that this research is approved. UOJComm (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I am the only one commenting on this, so you can forget it, and there is no need for a further reply. However, please inform those who arranged your project that they really need to provide a clear statement in a reliable fashion. You just provided three more links, but they seem totally unhelpful to me, so I conclude that there is nowhere that says your user name is approved to deliver multiple emails and talk page requests to promote a survey (and what limit, and what time frame?). In case you are perplexed why anyone would bother commenting on this, please consider the future. I am very confident that your work is good and approved (although it appears that is not verifiable!), but what are editors supposed to do if someone starts delivering messages with a link to a website where there is a survey which might even have the same name as your project? The website could deliver a different survey depending on context so a quick look would not ensure that it was "safe". Johnuniq (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq, I greatly appreciate your feedback and want to make this research as transparent as possible, including the approval it received. I will notify Dario, the Research Committee member I've been working with, of your concerns and look for ways to improve this protocol. UOJComm (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq, the project has been documented and reviewed extensively by the Research Committee, as per its discussion page. I agree with you that it's not clear to understand whether a project listed in the research directory on Meta has been reviewed and approved by the RCom or not. I'll modify the project templates so this is more clearly stated. Thanks for your feedback --DarTar (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that by "modify the project templates" you mean that some text will announce that the project is "approved". However, the critical point is that the individual editors who are delivering the messages need to be identified as approved. Otherwise, anyone could register an account, put some plausible text on their user page, and spam 1000 messages to editor's talk pages with two links: one to your template showing that it's approved, and the second to an attack website that is carefully designed to present plausible text and behavior, with the aim of some maliciousness once the mark has relaxed. Simple attacks include harvesting the IP address of targeted editors, or getting a significant percentage of them to reveal their email address. For an example of a slightly more complex attack, consider the ongoing drama concerning the theft and publication of (apparently) the entire archive of ArbCom's private mailing list (see here).

What should occur is that a special bot account be established, and only that account is used to deliver messages. The message should provide a link to a page on a WMF site with "how to respond" details. Particularly in view of the ArbCom fiasco mentioned above, my brief outline of what could go wrong with survey spam should be followed up with professional (highly paid) assistance from a security expert to sign off on whatever scheme is adopted. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Largely inactive these days due to work commitments but happy to help. Filling in the survey now. Thanks. Nach0king (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your participation! UOJComm (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For communicating with other editors, please add the option "project talk pages". Also, you may want to go over the entire survey for spelling and grammar errors, there were a number. --GRuban (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GRuban...Thank you for the comments and your participation. I tried to make survey questions exhaustive, but I obviously can improve that one. I revised the survey many times, though, so I'm surprised spelling and grammar issues were found...Do you happen to remember where? Thanks again! UOJComm (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the "number" may have been as little as three. :-) --GRuban (talk) 10:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You can review this policies here.
• Most contributors do no care about bias
• How democratic do you feel the governannce and structure of Wikipedia is?

Thanks so much for those catches GRuban! UOJComm (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never got an email from you on the 19th, but got a You've Got Mail notice from you on my user page User:Pedant (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I would be more than happy to do an interview and provide any background I can for your dissertation. I'm not the most technically savvy member of BAG, but I do know it's workings very well. If you want to emailuser me, I can send you my contact info. Phone or email or gchat would be the best ways to talk as I doubt I will be at either of your in-person locations. MBisanz ^talk 19:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'll do an interview. Google chat is probably the best way to reach me. I'll send you an email with my contact info. I can talk to you tonight if you'd like, but otherwise I'll have time most nights after 9 (US Eastern Time). Tim1357 ^talk 03:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'd be happy to answer some questions for you. The best way to get in touch with me right now is probably by email; I'll be in and out the next few days and don't know when I can expect to be online on any chat clients. Thanks, hope to hear from you soon. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hersfold...Thank you for the response and your willingness to be interviewed. I will email you my set of interview questions sometime in the next week. In the meanwhile, please take a look at the informed consent statement on my user page and let me know if you have any questions. Specifically, let me know if it's ok for me to use your Wikipedia username in my dissertation.

Thank you again, and keep your eye out for an email from me in the next week.

Randall UOJComm (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay; yes, it's fine to use my username as you need. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randall; I'm up for an interview, preferably over email at wikipedia.earwiggmail.com, as I'll be pretty busy this week with finals quickly approaching and I won't be able to talk through a chat client. Shoot me a message whenever you're ready, and I'll try to reply soon. — The Earwig ^(talk) 18:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Earwig. Thanks for your interest in the study. I will email you my set of interview questions sometime in the next week. In the meanwhile, please take a look at the informed consent statement on my user page and let me know if you have any questions. Specifically, let me know if it's ok for me to use your Wikipedia username in my dissertation.

Thanks again! Randall UOJComm (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, I am willing to answer any interview questions you may have by e-mail. I am MichaelWaddellgmail.com. I have read the informed consent statement on your user page, and I have no problem with you using my Wikipedia username in your dissertation. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thank you Quadell. I will email you those questions sometime over the next week. Randall UOJComm (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I have heard from you yet. Confusingly, I did receive an e-mail from User:Ling JIANG claiming to be a PhD candidate of City University of Hong Kong, "conducting a study concerning Wikipedia under the supervision of Prof. Christian Wagner". The e-mail contained a link that I did not recognize and did not click, since I'm not sure whether it's legitimate or not. Are you in any way connected with Ling Jiang of City University? – Quadell ^(talk) 15:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quadell. My apologies for not getting those questions to you sooner. I have gotten slightly backlogged with my email interview question lists, as I like to try and customize as much as possible based on the info you put forth publicly on WP. I will get you those questions in the next 48 hours though.

No, I am not associated with anyone from the City University of Hong Kong. If that is a legitimate study, it is not related to mine. Good luck sniffing that out, and thank you again for your interest in my study! Randall UOJComm (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've left messages for User talk:Ling JIANG here and on meta, but given the history of contributions I don't hold much hope of any effect. Randall, I'm still working on a response to your questionnaire. Josh Parris 22:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! (and no rush) UOJComm (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randall, I just sent you an e-mail. — Ganeshk (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello UOJComm, I meant to stop hear a while ago and say that I would be happy to help you guys out with an interview. My email is (or should be) on my user page, not exactly sure yet how I would like to do the interview (because of how my schedule is supposed to work out) but definitely interested. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 12:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DQ! Great, thank you! I just emailed you some information. Randall UOJComm (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm doing outreach to publicize the Berlin developers' conference in June -- I'm hoping to get the word out to Wikimedia's bot maintainers and bot developers, and not just on English Wikipedia. What outreach techniques have you found effective? I'd like to borrow your playbook. :-) Sumanah (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sumanah. Thanks for the note. I had to clear my outreach with the Wikimedia Foundation's Research Committee before contacting any editors, but I'm guessing you don't have to do that to publicize an event like this. My strategy was to post an open call on appropriate pages that bot operators read, such as the bot operator's noticeboard and the BAG page. I then sent individual emails to the top 150 bot operators by edit on EN WP, as well as top interwiki bot operators. I can pass the pages for those lists along to you if you think it would be helpful. Let me know how else I can help! UOJComm (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read your message from pywikipediabot.org community. I just use the bot, if you have any question for your research, please discuss with me.--Cheers! (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello...Thank you for your interest in my study. If you could, please email me so I have your address, and I will send you my list of interview questions sometime in the next week.

Also, please take a look at the infromed consent letter on my English Wikipedia user page and let me know if you have any questions. Specifically, let me know if it's ok for me to use your Wikipedia username in my dissertation.

Thanks again...Randall UOJComm (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A message have been sent to your email address.--Cheers! (talk) 08:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I did a little more parsing of BRFAs: User:H3llBot/Sandbox2 (warning: huge page). You should be able to get a little more from this than before, like duration. Hopefully there are very few errors. I don't know what other data you would want that's not too hard to get? May be things like number of contributors and such? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 15:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back in January, you left me this message about an interview about bots. I seem to have completely missed it, so I want to apologise for the lack of response. I will be absent from Wikipedia until late July or early August, but if you still want to do the interview, I would be up for it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Headbomb, and thanks for the message. I have recently completed my dissertation (soon to be available to the WP community) and the portion of interviewing that I contacted you about back in January, but I plan to continue this research in the fall and would love to still chat with you. I'm currently in the process of changing institutions, and I'll have to go through the IRB research ethics process again, but I will be in touch as soon as that is all sorted out. I look forward to hearing about your experiences in the bot community. Thanks again! UOJComm (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	You've inspired me to be more involved in Wikipedia. Thanks! Katied924 (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome!!! Kick some knowledge butt! UOJComm (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi man! I'd be happy to chat (again) about whatever you'd like to know. Just give me a ping on my talk page or on Gmail/Gtalk jhsoby@gmail.com, and I'll get back to you when I can. :-) Jon Harald Søby (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I'd be glad to help you in whatever I could. You can contact me on IRC (usually in the Spanish afternoon/evening, with the nick MrAjedrez, on Freenode) or by e-mail on mr.ajedrez@yahoo.es. Regards. Mr.Ajedrez (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: You can also be interested in entering the channel #wikipedia-es-tecnica or #wikipedia-es-bots in order to talk to several bot opperators on es.wiki at the same time. Regards. Mr.Ajedrez (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much...I will look for you on IRC. Unfortunately, I don't speak Spanish, so I don't want to intrude on a channel where I need to communicate in a non-native language (unless you feel the people on those channels you suggested won't mind?). UOJComm (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding bot chat about dawiki: You can catch me in #wikipedia-da on freenode as Kaare (people in there don't mind English) or send me a private message. I'm a bit on and off at the moment, though, and may not respond for hours/days, so please have patience. - Kaare (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great...thank you very much for your willingness to chat. I will find you IRC, and no worries about a delayed response. UOJComm (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Randall, the next days (and may be weeks) I'm under a terrible lack of spare time. So the chat has to wait. Sorry. --Obersachse (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Obersachse, and thanks for the response. I'll catch you once things slow down. UOJComm (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to talk to more users to talk to, I follow and work with the bot policy on nl-wiki and some sisterprojects for years. You can find me at #wikipedia-nl - Romaine (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Keith Richards' 1953 Fender Telecaster "Micawber", a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello UOJComm. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Keith Richards' 1953 Fender Telecaster "Micawber".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Keith Richards' 1953 Fender Telecaster "Micawber"}}, paste it in the edit box at , click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Another Mayberry (Big Head Todd and the Monsters album), a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello UOJComm. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Another Mayberry (Big Head Todd and the Monsters album)".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Another Mayberry (Big Head Todd and the Monsters album)}}, paste it in the edit box at , click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Congratulations! I almost forgot about that. Yes, I would love to have a look at it but not if it's going to cost you anything. Please feel free to mail me anytime. Cheers. --Ciphers (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Keith Richards' 1953 Fender Telecaster "Micawber", a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello UOJComm. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Keith Richards' 1953 Fender Telecaster "Micawber"".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Keith Richards' 1953 Fender Telecaster "Micawber"}}, paste it in the edit box at , click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am a college professor, and I am running an in-class workshop today where students will be working on their userpages only. I did this yesterday with a different section of the class, and after about 30 minutes, everyone began getting errors stating they could not edit because they were seen as a potential vandalism attack (which I fully understand). I don't want this to happen again today, though. Is there a way we can be white-listed so that my students can work more freely on their userpages? Thank you for the guidance! UOJComm (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me like an autoblock, but a large number of edits from the same IP may have tripped one of the edit filters... what was the message they got when they tried to edit?

I'd also strongly suggest two things: firstly, it would be of great benefit to you if you actually signed up to the Wikipedia Education Program (I don't see a course page for this class, nor an entry for Endicott in the list of participating institutions). You can then get assistance from one or more Online Ambassadors, who can help you and your students with most aspects of Wikipedia. Putting the students through the training is worthwhile, but having someone on hand to assist them is invaluable.

Secondly, there have been historical issues with the Endicott College page: it looks to have been the unfortunate target of several student editing sprees, none of which did much to improve it (and most of which had to be reverted). I'd advise against you and your students editing this page, since all of you will have a severe conflict of interest - combined with inexperience with Wikipedia's many policies and guidelines, that's a recipe for disaster. Successful education projects on Wikipedia tend to be those where the students edit the subjects of their studies, rather than pages about their college. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I don't have the exact error message, but it mentioned the edits being blocked because of suspected vandalism (though they were just working on their user pages). I recognize the apparent conflict of interest, but thought this would be a great opportunity for them to engage with the Wikipedia community and learn the rules of NPOV, etc. All students went through the WEP tutorial for students, but I did not sign up to officially be in the program. The Endicott College page is not very good, and I believe with oversight it is a good opportunity for my students to learn about WP and improve an article. I was not aware of previous edit sprees from students. Thank you very much for the advice...I really appreciate it. UOJComm (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am chatting with someone on IRC right now also about this issue (FYI). UOJComm (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! We chatted briefly on IRC (I'm 'ragesoss'). I definitely encourage you to sign your class up with our course page system; in addition to making it easier for other editors to help out, it will give you some tools to more easily keep track of what your students are doing on Wikipedia. (If you start with Wikipedia:Training/For educators, the end of that orientation will walk you through the process. If you have any problems, give me a ping.) User:Jami (Wiki Ed) or a Wikipedia Ambassador can also probably schedule a phone call with you, if you want to talk through your Wikipedia project; you can email her at jamiwikiedu.org.

On the issue of blocks, hopefully one of the admins you were chatting with was able to at least reduce the block level for your college's IP range so that registered users can still edit if they are logged in.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sage. Thank you for the message...I had just left a message on your Talk page as well. I do have a few bigger-picture questions to ask before I sign the class up, so should I address those to Jami? Or you? Thanks! UOJComm (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm free now, if you want to chat. I'll email you with my phone number.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yunshui: I just talked with UOJComm, and it sounds like he's got a pretty solid idea of how to approach the project without it become a COI disaster. In general, your COI advice is right on, but in this case, I think it'll be okay. The students have already spent some time looking at best practices for similar articles (such as the Dartmouth College FA). He also suggested the possibility of doing the work in a sandbox and letting others check it out for COI or other problems before moving it to mainspace, but given the current poor state of that article, I think just moving ahead with improving the article directly makes more sense.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Sage. Trust your judgement, as always. UOJComm, best of luck with your class; if you need an assistance, feel free to drop me a line. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your Wikipedia account was previously granted a user right called "course instructor" by the Wiki Education Foundation. That right enabled you to create a course page through the EducationProgram MediaWiki extension. Starting in fall 2015, the Wiki Education Foundation has discontinued its use of this extension. Going forward, users should create course pages through the Wiki Education Foundation website. That application is more user-friendly, and any content is automatically mirrored to Wikipedia. To prevent confusion, we'll be removing your "course instructor" user right, as it is not needed with the new system. This is simply a notification of the technical change to your account. No action is needed from you at this time.

If you plan on teaching with Wikipedia for the fall 2015 term, please email me (helainewikiedu.org) for instructions how to create your next course page using our new system. --Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk), sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]