Wikipedia talk:Wikiquette assistance/Archive 2

Archiving - and/or simpler page format

It would be handy to have a bot to look after the archiving for wikiquette alerts, though it couldn't be done using just the standard date method - a point made earlier on this page too. To this end I have asked at Wikipedia:Bot_requests if a keyword based bot could archive sections with the {{resolved}} template present, any suggestions or comments welcome :) sbandrews (t) 20:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I've found archiving this page somewhat complex. The problem is that some alerts stay open for a long time while progress is made, so the resolution dates are often very different from the date the alert was posted.

Also, due to the page layout with the alerts entered under the date they're filed, archiving is even more complicated because the filing date headings need to be transferred with the archived reports, but there might still be some reports still open from that same day - resulting in the same day being listed in both thte archive and on themain page.

We should change the page formatting to work like it does at WP:AN. There's no benefit to having dated section headings dividing things up. That way, when it's time to archive the page, whether it's a bot or a human, we can just look down the list for alerts that have any of the templates - resolved, stuck, or stale - and have been closed out for more than a week or so (to allow time for people to see the resolution. We should make sure to include the closing date in the template so we don't have to look for the last entry on the alert to figure out when it was closed. The other items that could be archived are any that have had no action for a couple weeks. Those would be stale anyway. If done by a bot, we could ignore the templates completely and just archive every alert that has had no activity for two weeks.

If you agree about this, you're welcome to make the changes, or if no one objects, I might do it soon, since the page needs to be archived anyway. If anyone else does it though, please review WP:AN to see their format (not including the fancy archive search box - it's cool but not needed here). Also, with this change, we would need to also edit the instructions to fit with the new layout. --Parzival418 _Hello 00:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the page should be simplified, and that could make it easier to archive. Something like the format of WP:AN is better. Removing the date headings would be valuable. Note that the {{resolved}} template is sometimes used on AN, which does save the reader from looking through requests that have already been dealt with. I'm not so sure that the other templates, {{stuck}} and {{stale}}, are essential here. Time-based bot archiving could be used to take away stale requests, say after 14 days of inactivity. Manual archiving, for whoever is doing it now, must be extremely tedious. EdJohnston 03:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I agree about the "stale" template. That one I added mainly to help volunteers avoid reading old unarchived alerts. The "stuck" template though should be continuned to be used, because sometimes there are issues that are closed because they need to be referred elsewhere, or because the editors involved are so at odds that nothing short of administrative action could help, and we need a way of identifying that the item is closed but not resolved. Maybe a better word than "stuck" could be found - I chose "stuck" after seeing some alerts that actually did get stuck. Maybe "referred" or some other better sounding term could be used.

You're right, the manual archiving has been tedious. I'll remove the date headings when I have a chance, unless someone else does it first. But I don't know anything about how to do bot archiving. If you or someone you know could help us with that, that would be great. Thanks. --Parzival418 _Hello 03:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Time-based bot archiving works well on some other pages, such as Talk:Evolution, where they use Miszabot. Look at the first six lines of Talk:Evolution in the edit window to see how the bot is configured. It is fairly easy to tweak the number of days of inactivity to whatever gives the best results. If you think there is consensus to remove the date headings here, I could start work on that. EdJohnston 03:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, that sounds good. I looked at Talk:Evolution and saw the configuration lines. I'm sure no-one would mind if we remove the date headings, they don't have any function anyway. They're left over from before a couple of us reformatted the page a couple months ago; we kept them because that's how it was done before when the page had only date headings and no incident headings - that was even worse! More recently, pretty much only me and sbandrews have been responding to the alerts regularly (a few others have handled one here and there). He's the one who started this talk page section about the archiving, so I know he wouldn't mind. If you have the time to set it up, that would be much appreciated, thanks for offering.

If you do proceed, I'd say two weeks of no activity on an alert would be enough time to let it be archived. But also, check out the archives pages here, they're a bit unusual. They have monthly pages that are transcluded onto the annual pages. That's probably more complex than needed. I didn't set them up, though I did make notes in the archives to show when the formats changed, and I added the archivebox to this page. If easier, you could start a new set of pages and let it be however the bot needs it to be. The current setup is a legacy from whoever set it up long ago... --Parzival418 _Hello 04:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(←) OK, I have removed all the date subheadings so the page looks more like WP:AN now. I've also edited the instructions to match the new format. When you have a chance, please go ahead and tell the bot to oarchive any sub-section under the "active alerts" section, once the sub-section has no activity for 2 weeks.

Also, now that the date sections are removed, I don't think we need to use the tempaltes for the bot. If there's been no talk on an alert for two weeks, we can archive it whether or not there is a resolved template. After two weeks of silence, no-one will miss it if it's archived. I'm pretty sure that's how WP:AN and WP:ANI do it, though they have more activity and maybe a shorter time period before archiving. --Parzival418 _Hello 19:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Good work, I placed a tag for user:MiszaBot to archive all time-stamped sections with no activity for 14 days to Wikiquette alerts/Archive 16. No doubt fine tuning will be required :) sbandrews (t) 21:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed archive scheme using MiszaBot II

After the above conversation with Parzival418, I went ahead and constructed this config file (based on the instructions at User:MiszaBot/Archive_HowTo:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
  | maxarchivesize = 128K
  | counter = 16
  | algo = old(14d)
  | archive = Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive%(counter)d
}}

I have not installed this yet. I hope that everyone who has an opinion about archiving this page will take a look at it.

• We would keep the current archive directory at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/Archive and the individual year files under that directory. These 'year files' have very little text, because they just transclude the individual archives, which are month-based currently. An example of a 'year file' is Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/Archive/2007.

• I would keep the system of the individual archives, such as Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive15. At present these are month based, but under the MiszaBot system I propose they should just be incremental archives, covering no specific interval of dates. Each one would accumulate text until it reached 128K, and then a new file would start automatically.

• The first archive file under the new automated system would be Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive16, which is specified by counter = 16 above.

• We might need to play around with the style of the headings in Wikiquette Alerts so that MiszaBot II would recognize the threads and archive them properly. In the above config file we are specifying that each complete thread would get archived 14 days after the last contribution to it.

• Here is the maintenance needed: (a) someone will check periodically that complete threads are being cleanly removed from the noticeboard and put in the correct archive; (b) someone will add new lines to the year file periodically, noting down the start and end date of each archive file (this may be every couple of months); (c) someone will create a new year file at the beginning of each year.

Please let me know your thoughts on this proposed scheme. EdJohnston 21:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Great minds think alike; User:sbandrews has already installed a config file. The only change I would suggest is that the file name descriptor should be Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive%(counter)d because otherwise the new archive file names won't have the same style as the old. (lower case initial letter 'a', and no space before the number). EdJohnston 21:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes! Well in this case two minds are much better than one :) Please go ahead and make any changes needed, archiving is new to me but I'm sure it will make life easier for us once set up, regards, sbandrews (t) 21:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

excellent, well-done, a fine collaboration!

Do we want to keep the current annually based archive page system? Maybe it's not needed and we could just use plain incremental archives. It's nice having them transcluded onto one page, but I bet no-one has searched for anything in there for a long time. And if one did need to find something, it could be zero'd in on pretty fast anyway. What do you think - keep the more complex maintenance procedure and the transcluded archive page, or simplify further?

If we do keep the current method, maybe we should place the maintenance instructions in the talk page text as a comment, just beneath the bot template... If so, we could add a short reference on the main page in the archiving note section to say where those instructions are located. Does that sound like a good method? --Parzival418 _Hello 01:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it sounds good to save the maintenance instructions somewhere. There may be a way to stuff a comment into the text surrounding the archive box, or at least a pointer to the instructions. The transcluded archive page might be overkill but it seems harmless at present. The only problem is that to open the page for a given year in your browser, you have to load ALL the archives for that year, but they are under 400K at present so that is still doable. And once you have loaded it you can search for whatever item you want in the entire year.

When I was active on Talk:Evolution I found myself searching the archives repeatedly, but I suppose that is less likely here. EdJohnston 02:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's cool to be able to search a whole year at once. My concern is just that we don't know how well the maintenance will be done, since someone else might be doing it... If you think that will work out OK, that we can document the procedure in an accessible place, then let's keep the setup as it is now for convenient searching. --Parzival418 _Hello 02:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

congratulations, we have lift-off

Hi - I noticed the bot did some archiving tonight, and it seemed to work just right. Thanks for helping with that, we have a much better system now.

One thing I found was that the archive template header on the new Archive page was wrong. The regular one produces a box that says to take any new comments to the talk page. When I reorganized the archiving process the first time, without the bot, I got someone to help me make a new template for the archive pages that refers to the main page instead of the talk page for posting new alerts. So this is the one we should use at the top of each archive page:

{{archivemainpage|Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts}}

I changed that tonight on Archive 16, I hope it doesn't bother the bot. I guess the bot will insert the regular one again next time it makes a new page. It's not a big deal, but it's a bit strange if the main page archive directs tot he talk page.

Anyway, aside from that, it was cool seeing the bot handle the archive, thanks again! --Parzival418 _Hello 09:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes that seems to be working fine, a good effort all round :) Just to pick up on the issue of the transcluded archive pages, it takes my underpowered PC about 12s to load and display Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/Archive/2007 - is that the same for users with a better setup? sbandrews (t) 09:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's faster than that on my Macbook, but slower than a regular Wikipage. The trade off is that in exchange for the load time, you can search through the whole year at once instead of loading a bunch of archives if you're trying to find a particular alert. I think for now it's OK - if it bogs down more as the year goes on we can change it. Could be your network that's slowing it, it's all text so the computer's not working hard to render it the page. --Parzival418 _Hello 09:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want to load the whole year 2007 at one time you can just load an individual archive file, for example Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive15 or 16. On my G4 Powerbook (4 years old) it takes about 6 seconds to load the whole year (to date) 2007. EdJohnston 17:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Good idea - added an index to the archive box to do just that :) sbandrews (t) 21:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

New Items at the end

Essentially all the noticeboards and pages with a similar function now have newest items at the bottom--I suggest that this one be changed to match for consistency--its a nuisance having to check for each new thing that you're in the right place. DGG (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I see it is set up that way--fooled by a few people making errors at the top. As is obvious, i dont come here as often as I should.DGG (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know why people do that. It's in the instructions but I think a lot of people don't even bother to read them. I've re-edited edited the intro to emphasize the instructions more. Hope it helps. --Parsifal _Hello 22:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

question to the regular handlers of this board

Irpens' comment copied here from the main page:

But seriously, a question to the regular handlers of this board. Is there a reason why this board is needed. Is it fundamentally different from WP:RFI and WP:PAIN both deleted per my urging with the wide consensus approval. AFAI can see, this is used either as a Wikipedia:Request to block or as a Wikipedia:Complaints department. Is it needed? --Irpen 06:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern. But WQA has become something different than those. It's an early step in dispute resolution, not a random place to complain. Some of the reports do end up as random complaints, or don't get a response. But many of them do get responses from editors who are good at mediating, or calming messy uncivil discussions.

If you read the archives, you'll see some of each - stale or stuck reports, and resolved ones. A lot of times the situations are helped by having a neutral third party. Some times, no help is possible and WQA refers people to the next step in dispute resolution and helps them figure out just which next step would be best.

A lot of editors don't even know which way to turn when they have a problem. Sometimes we direct them to WP:EA or WP:3O; we've helped set up article RFCs; or sometimes it's just a question of pointing out that it's better to discuss editing articles rather than the way someone communicates on a talk page and we can help them just relax and get back to editing.

I'm not handling many alerts lately though I've done a lot of work here and helped resolve a lot of disputes, plus redesigning the procedures from what it was before - which was basically a shouting match - to what it is now, a place to start on the path of resolving disputes. I also posted invitations to help respond to the alerts in a few places around Wikipedia, and in the instructions for the page, so now there's a variety of editors who help out regularly. Also, this is a way for volunteers to get experience helping to resolve disputes, without admin tools. It's quite a challenge and an excellent training ground.

Sure, Wikipedia could do without this page. But then a lot the stuff that's posted here would probably end up at WP:AN/I because people have to have someplace to go when they get to the end of their rope, and that's one of the main places that would be on the radar. From what I've seen of WP:AN/I, there are so many reports there they get archived in 24 hours and often without a response. So WQA is a preliminary place for people to seek help without clogging up the other avenues. Well those are some thoughts about it.

I'm not personally attached to WQA staying or going, but I do think it fills a positive function in the dispute resolution process and takes burden off the admin pages. --Parsifal _Hello 07:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a need for a place like this where editors can raise concerns. It is certainly not the same as "request to block". Many complaints here end up with the editor raising the complaint being given a bit of advice about where their own actions have been poor. I think it would be appropriate to indicate in the top of the page that we do often get vexatious reports from problem editors who are making trouble; and that responders should bear in mind that often the person who needs to shape up is the person submitting the report. In particular, we should not be shy of pointing to WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 07:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Archiving (main page & talk page)

I changed the MiszaBot config for the WQA main page to include the proper {{archivemainpage}} template as the header on new archive pages instead of {{talkarchive}}. I also added a MiszaBot config to this page to archive all discussions after they reach 30 days with no comments, leaving a minimum of 3 threads on this page so it's not completely barren. --Darkwind (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Stated purpose of WQA

Bsharvy (t c) came to my talk page to complain that I've changed the info box at the top of the WQA page without discussion. I, on the other hand, feel it's just part of the WP:BRD cycle; and also what I changed accurately reflects what we do here at WQA (at least over the past two months I've been frequenting the project).

What do y'all think? Was this change a valid clarification of the purpose of WQA? Also, does any change need to be made to the first paragraph of normal text to match that change? --Darkwind (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The edit has subsequently been reverted, but I'd still like some input on the change I've proposed. --Darkwind (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It sounds fine to me. The term "stressful situations" is way too broad to cover what WQA can really take on - stressful situations can include WP:COI and WP:LEGAL, as well as things that belong on the Admin Noticeboard, etc. WQA is really only here to help people resolve communication and behavior issues of a relatively minor degree, so I agree with your change, Darkwind.

Incidentally, I think both you and Bsharvy should back off from one another - your own discussion about this is the sort of thing that, ironically, gets reported on WQA quite a bit. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I know, and I keep telling myself not to answer, but I do anyway. I've made my final input on the matter on the page here, and I doubt I'll respond to the next comment on my talk page. --Darkwind (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It is good that the only purpose is not soliciting a judgement on a violation, but also discussion, resolution and moderation. If the concern is only that people will think this is a place to resolve legal disputes, a more measured approach is simply to clarify that. Personally, I don't think that's a compelling concern. The language is already clear about the limits of the page:

• "an early step in the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Process"
• "a non-binding noticeboard "
• "to seek perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum"
• "Wikiquette alerts are an informal streamlined way to request perspective and help with difficult communications with other editors."

If somebody is going to ignore all these stated limits, deleting "stressful situations" in the intro won't make a major difference. The officially stated purpose of the page is reasonable, welcoming, and probably has stood for a long time. The situation which provoked Darkwind to edit it was a heated exchange in a very brief period. That's not a setup for positive, measured editing. See: WP:NAM. Take a break. Bsharvy 05:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, soliciting the opinion of many other people is contrary to the spirit of WP:BRD. You need to work with me. Bsharvy 05:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:BRD is actually an essay, which means it's a suggestion made by one or more editors on how to edit. It is not a policy or guideline which anyone is technically required to follow, though in most cases they do give good advice. I must also point out though that posting a message to the bold editor's talk page isn't discussed in BRD either, so even if it were something that had to be followed you'd be in just as much "trouble" if not more since it's expected that one will follow the rules they are trying to enforce. Anynobody 06:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• The purpose of this section is to discuss the page intro. Please don't use it as an excuse to grind your old axes.
• Your timeline is wrong. I posted a message to his Talk page, and in response he referred to WP:BRD.
• Your last sentence doesn't make sense. 1) I said something about the spirit of WP:BRD, which differs explicitly from demanding an enforcement. 2) If WP:BRD doesn't discuss posting a message to Talk, then doing so couldn't be a violation of WP:BRD.
• Please don't stalk me, and don't transfer the personality conflict from Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki to here. Thank you. Bsharvy 07:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely with User:KieferSkunk. I don't think there's too much wrong with the current version, but User:Darkwind's change was, in my opinion, a slight improvement, and also entirely compatible with the current wording in the first paragraph of the page (if you have suggestions for changing that paragraph as well, though, I'm certainly open to them). Sarcasticidealist 11:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Bsharvy, with all due respect, you've gotten me entirely wrong:

1. If you are really that interested in improving the lead section, how is accusing someone of ignoring an essay going to accomplish that? (Plus if I really had an axe to grind I'd consult a few other editors you've treated similarly and open up a request for comment, user since you seem to have similar issues with more than one editor a third opinion would be insufficient.
2. I didn't give a timeline, I simply pointed out that the essay you were citing doesn't say anything about contacting an editor on their talk page concerning WP:BRD style edits.
3. Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle describes a plan which can be used for making bold edits, and even goes so far as to include a diagram, Image:BRD1.svg, which ensures clarity. You said Darkwind's edit ignored the spirit of BRD, as if it was something that mattered like WP:V or WP:NPA. My point was that if it did matter as much though, pointing out someone else's non-compliance without specifying it yet ignoring what the page you're talking about actually says. (If you had followed BRD, you wouldn't have posted to his/her talk page, yet you did and still say someone else doesn't use it properly.)
4. Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Anyeverybody I'm not stalking you, I'm here because you brought me and then disrespected the volunteers you asked for comments from. Anynobody 05:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If almost everyone agrees that Darkwind's wording is a slight improvement, why is it being reverted? Mark Chovain 06:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a natural compromise. Since people like the phrasing of the opening sentence, let's replace "stressful situations" with ""difficult communications with other editors" (from the fist paragraph). This keeps open the possibility of mediation and facilitation, while getting rid of the part people think invites too much.

Anynobody: I don't follow your logic, and I don't see how it contributes to the topic. Bsharvy 06:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd support that, as it makes it clear that this is about communication break-downs rather than stressful content disputes. Mark Chovain 06:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The page reverted once because there had been no discussion, and Darkwind sugested that's what I do if I want to discuss it. So I did. I reverted a second time (about 5 minutes ago) because 1) the revert of the revert was by someone who has never contributed to this disussion, and 2) because a discussion is not a vote: the goal is to find something mutually agreeable. However, it's not important: feel free to revert the revert of the revert if you want.Bsharvy 06:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see, Bsharvy, I don't think Darkwind did anything wrong in asking for more opinions on this issue. He followed consensus procedures quite nicely - he made a bold edit, then took it to discussion when the edit was reverted. I realize there was a heated exchange between you two in regards to this topic, but in my view, he has done nothing wrong. I see a bit of resistance from you on the consensus discussion, though - it seems as though most people here agree that Darkwind's initial edit was fine. As per WP:CON, you need to be willing to accept that your own view might not constitute consensus. (And I apologize if I seem disjointed and/or more blunt than I really intend to be - I'm recovering from dental surgery at the moment and am taking Vicodin, which is making it more difficult for me to think clearly than usual.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I proposed a compromise, so I'm not sure what you mean. How is trying to compromise "resistance"? See [1]: a discussion is not a vote, it's a search for something mutually agreeable. I didn't say Darkwind did anything wrong. He invoked WP:BRD, the spirit of which is that you work with the disagreeing editor rather than involving many others. I said he needed to work with me; so far he has completely ignored the "D" in BRD.Bsharvy 21:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying that I don't see anything wrong with Darkwind having opened this up for discussion among a larger group. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was wrong. I said it was contrary to the spirit of WP:BRD, which says stuff like: " explain and discuss your reasoning with the reverter and consider their different views too (don't go for discussion with too many people at once) .... Once you find someone who disagrees strongly enough to revert your change...you can proceed toward consensus with that one person .... Limit your discussion to one or at most two other individuals at a time." Bsharvy 04:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there any objection to the compromise proposed above? Bsharvy 04:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That is something that must be discussed on the relevant talk page, not here. --Cheeser1 05:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Bsharvy if the compromise you listed is the reason you've caused a fuss, your interpretation of what must be discussed is very VERY narrow. You reverted, twice, a perfectly good suggestion for change made by Darkwind because you want to ...replace "stressful situations" with ""difficult communications with other editors"... AND because they should have proposed their changes first? Such a change is so minor you could've just made it yourself, if nobody reverted or edited it to your disapproval then you can assume consensus. The only time discussion like this is necessary are times when major changes are being proposed.

I was waiting for you to actually point to the slight mistake in it, saying it's not part of WP:DR when it's listed in the DR infobox. Instead, we have to read through your lectures on policies and guidelines, just to discuss a minor edit. Anynobody 05:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering why you just produced two paragraphs on the topic of avoiding "fuss" in response to my yes or no question.Bsharvy 13:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see what was wrong with Darkwind opening this up for a larger discussion, Bsharvy - in your response to me above, you seem to say "nothing's wrong with it, but he should have done it differently anyway" - your statement seems to contradict itself. And I agree that it seems this discussion has become somewhat pointless. I'm fine with "difficult communications with others", and I'd like to see us just make the edit and stop making such a fuss over it. Frankly, we all have much more important things to do than bicker about the wording of the introduction to the WQA page, which I'd wager not very many people bother to read anyway. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to add that I think Darkwind's original edit ("possible breaches of Wikiquette") is a bit more to the point of Wikiquette Alerts - "difficult communications" can still be too broad a topic for this page. This page's purpose is to counsel people on proper Wiki etiquette, comment on disputes, and help resolve disputes between editors where Wikiquette has been breached. But that doesn't mean we can or will just step in whenever someone has a "difficult communication" with another editor - that could mean anything to anyone (like User A deciding to just ignore User B, etc.). If we all agree that "difficult communications" is sufficient to address the point, I'll be fine with that too, but having phrasing that specifically links to the topic of Wikiquette is better, IMO. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi folks - I watchlist this page because I used to do a lot WQA volunteering, though I've been busy with other projects lately. I wrote much of the wording in the version of the intro you're discussing. I don't mind at all that you're changing it; it's great that the page is being managed and improved, and I appreciate that you are working on it.

But I thought it would be helpful to offer a few ideas for your consideration:

I gave a lot of thought to the wording in the infobox, and chose to use "impolite or uncivil behavior or other stressful situations" because in watching the people posting WQA's, I saw those two elements in common on almost every alert, in other words - bad behavior, and a stressed out person making the report.

I think it's important to let people feel this page is informal, generally receptive and a comfortable place to ask for help. By the time editors have been disputing so much they need to seek help, they can be pretty upset. Often they are inexperienced about how to report problems. You've probably seen WQA's where the editors don't even know how to use diffs.

It's true that a lot of alerts are posted here that should really go somewhere else, so by making the intro more general, we end up having some extra work. But then again, WQA is pretty much the first place people go when they have a problem, and lots of those people have no idea how to even find the right place. So if WQA has an auxiliary function of referring to the right place, that can be good. And often there are civility issues mixed in with the other problems; restoring respectful communications can make a big difference and sometimes the other issues can be solved indirectly that way.

Regarding the terminology in the first paragraph - I'm sure you'll come up with a good solution, but I'd like to offer one technical note. Although WQA is part of the dispute resolution process, it's informal, not "formal". There are only two processes of dispute resolution that are truly formal: mediation (WP:RFM) and arbitration (WP:RFA). If you take a look at the structure of the mediation and arbitration pages, you'll see the differences right away.

That's why I worded the intro like this: "This page is not part of the formal dispute resolution process, so it can be a good place to start if you are not sure where else to go." I suggest that you remove the word formal from the current version, because it's confusing and not accurate. I'm not making the edit myself, because I'm not active working the page right now, so I'll leave it to your discretion, but I do recommend that you make that change.

I noticed that you added that this page does not issue sanctions. That makes sense, since some people come to WQA looking for those; but in that regard I suggest that you move that to a later sentence, and don't use bold underlined italics that draws too much attention. When there are a lot of links and bold words in a paragraph, people often scan the paragraph and don't read it.

The intro paragraph should be as short and easy to read as possible while communicating what needs to be communicated. If it's too much, people won't read it. WQA works much better when the alert-posters have read the intro first, but people are in a hurry (and "stressed out"), so we need to make it easy for them.

Anyway, as I said, you're welcome to change the intro according to your consensus; I have no vested interest in the parts of it that I wrote. Those are just some thoughts based on months of working WQA earlier this year. I hope you find them valuable.

Overall, I recommend you make it a friendly intro, easy for people who are agitated and don't know what to do, to find their way into the process of getting some help.

Good work! --Parsifal _Hello 20:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the thing, dividing WP:DR into formal/informal ignores templates like {{Dispute-resolution}} which don't make designations between them. I think it would be better to not minimize its part in dispute resolution, since it's listed equally with WP:RFC/U and WP:3O.

In other words, formally or informally it's still part of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. To give the same, harmless impression, it should instead be emphasized that blocks/sanctions aren't issued here. If an issue starts here, and ends up in arbcom, it's a safe bet conduct here will be looked at too, making it suddenly seem much more formal than we made it out to be. Anynobody 04:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I'll leave the decision to consensus here. But that info box is just an info box, it's not a formal construct or an indication of policy. Even WP:RFC/U is not formal; it's not regularly monitored by admins or committees, and most often RFC/Us end with either no action, stale, or the parties coming to an agreement on their own. If you check the archives of completed RFC/U reports, you'll see there are very few of them that result in significant action. WP:3O is completely informal, take a look at that page. It's just editors offering to give third opinions.

Also, you should know that this whole page was almost deleted less than a year ago. Some of the discussions about that are in the archives and I think there was an MfD debate that resulted in no consensus, though I don't have the link handy. It was only a few days ago that I removed the historical controversy box. I'll show some more examples, but keep in mind, these still transclude the new "beginning" page - that part was different back then too. In April, that box looked like this, and at that time, there was a heading box on the main page looked like this.... and a short time before that, it had this infobox at the top.

My point is, the life of this page is very much not a formal process. You could try to formalize it by making a proposal for a guideline or policy, but if you did, there is a good chance you'd find that lots of people would prefer that this page not even exist at all. I think it's useful in providing a pressure release valve for the community and a way to solve problems without depending on admin tools, and a good training ground for admins-to-be, but it's also a page that needs to be handled carefully so it doesn't become a shouting match, as you've probably seen. The shouting match element I think is what was bothering people about it before when it was not managed as well; it's improved a lot since then. --Parsifal _Hello 05:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Stuck doesn't apply sometimes

I noticed that a thread was refrred to WP:ANI for further action because this was the wrong venue. In cases like that it seems critical to say it became stuck here, for those exceptions I created

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

Anynobody 06:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

True enough. So this would be for cases that should be immediately referred to ANI, rather than cases that (unfortunately) escalate while here (in which case, I think stuck still works)? --Bfigura ^(talk) 15:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Definitely, {{stuck}} works for situations where this board is appropriate but is unable to solve the problems stated by discussion/logic. Wheras {{NWQA}} would be for posts referred anywhere else besides further WP:DR. Anynobody 05:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Man, I do like templates. Maybe we should have a few more. I'd say we need one for when there is no etiquette violation, you know? Like when someone comes and says "an admin left a vandalism warning - s/he was attacking me!" It's not stuck, but it's not resolved. It's just sort of - there's no issue I guess. I don't really do templates, but if anyone else thinks its necessary, I might look into cooking one up. --Cheeser1 04:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

We'd have to be careful with that one. (I.e., make a template that looks more like a personal explanation, rather than a banner tag). Otherwise there might be a chance of it turning into "zOMG!! The Wikiquette people are part of the ROUGE ADMIN CABAL!!!111". Good idea though. Hmm... along that sort of line, would it be worth creating some sort of frequently used response list (either a subpage to link to, or copy/paste/template from)? I haven't been monitoring WQA that long, so the only thing I've seen often is the "Admin attacking me case". Ideas? --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The admin attacking me case was an exaggeration of what happens somewhat frequently - somebody comes here and says "so-and-so did such-and-such and it was bad," when in fact, there is absolutely no reasonable grounds for any breach of etiquette complaint. Rather than get mired in these "but they were mean to me" complaints, a quick sort of "no contest" response might be good. It would keep the frivolous stuff from getting out of hand. --Cheeser1 05:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I completely agree. I just wanted to say that whatever template we use for that just shouldn't sound too template-y, if you catch my meaning. I think a few sentences with some links to SPADE or some such would work. (Just enough to explain to the person why there's no breach). Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm opposed on principle grounds to templating any response intended to be read by the user who posted the alert. Status templates are great, they help us organize and prioritize the page (and they're a great help to me when I go 'round for manual archival when the page gets huge), but I strongly feel that anything we actually respond to posters with needs to be personalized and hand-written. Take it as an extension of WP:TEMPLAR, even if the person who posted isn't a regular (yet). --Darkwind (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This was not intended to be a template-only form response. The template would have to go with a reasonable explanation of why the complaint totally fails to violate WP:CIVIL. I'm not sure if I made that clear. It would just be a quick way to keep the page organized and let everyone know what kind of dispute is going on in that section. --Cheeser1 01:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion to compromise on the idea of a "no violation" template. Actually two templates, on for affirmative (yes) violations and another for no violation that can act as a tally of editor opinions. (I don't want to ruin anyone's fun by doing every idea I propose, there could be others who enjoy writing templates too). But as a suggestion on formatting it to look something like this:

Violation	No violation
Anynobody Editor 1 Editor 0	Editor 3 Editor 2 Editor 5

I agree that templates can be overused when dealing with warnings/etc. but for organization or consensus they really could be used more. Anynobody 06:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's in the spirit of what I intended. A "no violation" template should be used when consensus is that there is no violation (either after discussion, or immediately if the claim is totally frivolous). It shouldn't be a vote or something. --Cheeser1 06:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going with Cheeser here. I'd strongly oppose some sort of vote-y template. Templates should probably only come into play after a consensus is established (or if something is clearly a non-WQA issue, ie ANI/AIV/etc). They shouldn't create the impression of a vote. --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Archiving not ending up in archives?

Looks like something is broken in the archiving...archived entries after Sept 22 are gone. --Kickstart70-T-C 19:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

A bot has archived the text to:

• Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive25
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive26
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive27
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive28

It looks like someone has to manually add these archives to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/Archive/2007. –panda (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. But starting in 2008 we should consider if such an elaborate system is still needed. The only advantage I see of the present system is that you can search through a whole year of WQA at a time. A simpler way is to let MiszaBot update the list of archives automatically. Just set auto=yes in the template. EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

== User:Eusebeus ==

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• I do not believe User:Eusebeus's comment on my talk page was civil. I believe the user's tone was agressive and the choice of language was impolite. I did not see any examples of civil words such as "please" and "thank you". Since Eusebeus failed time and again to use edit summaries, discuss the issue on the talk page, and cite policies and guidelines (not essays), then I do not believe that user's conduct was propper, per Wikipedia:Etiquette. I believe my claim is valid, because I believe I presented solid evidence that I wish the community to examine, and I did present all the diffs requested. I do not agree with any editor who thinks it is okay to call another user "nasty" for any reason whatsoever. Period. It does not help Wikipedia. I believe it's rude; it's impolite, and it's uncivil. If a user does not agree with another user's edits, then the users should discuss calmly and politely citing specific portions of policies and guidlines and why they believe that, not call each other nasty or other names such as "fatuous", "a victim of your own ignorance", "ignorant", "juvenile", "completely without merit", "whining adolescent", or "childish" for any reason at all. Even if a user believes another user is acting with poor judgement or in bad faith, the user should still be civil and not resort to name-calling. Taric25 (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

At the polite request of User:Egfrank on my talk page, I am withdrawing the RfC. Taric25 (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why no new section tab?

I even tried adding __newsectionlink__ and it didn't work. —Random832 16:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure, but it might be better not to have a new section link at the top of the WQA. Users should read the instructions first - sometimes they don't and we get complaints that don't belong, or that we can't make sense of. I've added a link to the instructions though. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving question

Hi. Does anybody know why the archiving page and index don't list the latest archive files (currently 29 and 30)? If this is an oversight, can somebody correct it? Thanks. 65.42.91.146 (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Re; User:Ronz

This active discussion was inappropriately flagged as being non editable. IF it was Cheeser1 who THEN he's got something to answer for. Please read the recommendations for archiving discussions, which explicitly state that active discussions are NOT to be archived. Nice try. Templating just because you know a template just isn't going to work to silence our voices. I am reporting this incident.

As for my having it seriously wrong about how wikipedia works, if you don't understand that showing up somewhere you've been asked not to show up to is form of harassment, then you're the one with serious reality distortion. Even IF there were no specific rule against editing someone's talk page, we all GET what's going on here. Do you understand that? People GET what's going on in that situation. It's typical, and typically shallow, of a certain type of "wikinerd" that they think they can lawyer their way through anything, as though there were no underlying reality to any situation- only their opinion. Please see wikipedia's policy on wikilawyering for details. wikiwatcher9999 (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999

I would highly suggest backing off of this case and find something else to do; perhaps hunt around Special:Recentchanges. Let the AfD run its normal course and stop attacking or provoking other editors for their opinions or actions. I'm pretty sure you are aware of the assume good faith policy, seeing as how many others have noted it to you. I've also reverted some of your edits on the basis of WP:SOAP and WP:NPA: please keep your opinions about other editors off of article talk pages. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because they aren't normally archived in a boilerplate doesn't mean they can't be. They have been in the past, when a discussion needs to be closed. This discussion is over. You constantly accuse others of acting in bad faith when they are doing simple things that are standard practice on Wikipedia. This discussion is closed. If you have a legitimate etiquette complaint, start a new section, but do not edit this complaint and do not make new frivolous complaints. This is an alertboard, not your soapbox. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You should check his contribs. His talk page is just one very long rant against "deletionist" trolls. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty disturbing. It may need to be MfD'd. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I just applied for AIV given the rather incivil comments throughout, the last straw being what was just posted at the AfD. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Here/here, for reference. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It's still barely related to Wikipedia, so I can't outright remove it per WP:SOAP. I did remove it from an article talk page, where it was wholly inappropriate. The user will eventually run out of steam, so I'm hoping that the user will just fade away or find something else to edit instead of forum shop, as the user is doing now. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a forum for complaining about editor's behavior. I am using it for that purpose You links don't apply in this situtation. Otherwise, I really don't say anything about other editors. If you think I am going to not complain, because you STRONGLY advise me not to, then you need to get acquainted with wikipedia policy for making complaints. wikiwatcher9999 (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999

This is not "a forum for complaining about editor's behavior" and even if it were, you are still permitted to open any valid complaints you might have. Follow the procedure outlined at the top of this page to open any legitimate complaints you might have. However, do not re-open discussions that have been closed. Your initial comments were already tangential to the original complaint, and the discussion is no longer within the bounds of what this alertboard does. Do not edit-war over a discussion being closed, when you can discuss your concern about that closure here like it says, and you can create a new discussion for any legitimate, new concerns you might have. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, in response to the tag that the Wikiquette item ("Ronz") should be moved elsewhere, I created this RfC. I notified the disputants at the time (Ronz and Anthon01, besides myself), put notification on the QW talk page, the wikiquette itself, and notified Seicer, but I'm not sure Cheeser1 and Wikieditor9999 are up to date. I think 9999 added his section after the RfC was created. If I'm not mistaken about procedure, I'll be expecting rebuttals &c to occur there. But I'll start watching here too of course. Pete St.John (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that I have discussed this with Peter, and we're both in agreement that this complaint (by wikieditor9999) is not related to his complaint (and of course, I've made it clear that I believe wikieditor's complaint also fundamentally lacks merit too). --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I just want to clarify that while Cheeser1's conclusion is substantially correct, I didn't study 9999's case myself; I looked over it but it's missing lots of details that a more experienced legal-eagle would have included. The general thrust seemed to be similar to both mine and Anthon01's, but I think the latter cases are better enunciated, so I let that one go, so to speak. I'm not contending that case, as Cheeser1 says, but I do not know that it is unrelated. Pete St.John (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You have misunderstood my comment. I have refactored it slightly. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wish to help

Hi, I was wondering if I could help out on th WQA board here. Are there any formal requirements to do so? For the record I'd mention that I have been "reported" here once, but the complaining party was eventually found to be operating four puppet accounts. Thanks. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure :) There is no official signup form. Your contributions are much welcomed. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the things that might be helpful, if you haven't already, is to go through old discussions and get an idea of all the complaints that come up and how they are handled (keep in mind, of course, that sometimes the answers given aren't perfect - it's good to see which ones work well and which ones don't). --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure indeed; note that the item above, my complaint against Ronz, turned into an RfC that hasn't been addressed. It may just be too complicated, or too ugly, or insufficiently well-posed. If you can resolve it, it would be something. If you merely try and help, it would be something :-) Pete St.John (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright fellas, I'll go through the earlier cases and gain familiarity with the WQA resolution process. The Ronz case does seem complex; I'll try to understand it and help. Chow! ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I went through the Ronz case and it does seem to be a fairly long drawn out issue. Although I'm yet to understand it fully, at first seems that both sides are trying to do the right thing, but there has been some misunderstanding due to Ronz unwillingness to explain his actions in greater length than is strictly required. I'll try to get more familier with the matter and give my comments thereafter on the RfC ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Very good analysis. If he would explain himself in greater detail I suspect it would help. I haven't reviewed Peter's case in great detail, but in my case Ronz was wrong most of the time. I think there is one more aspect of this case though that is very difficult to pick up without being involved in the case. Around the 15th of december, Ronz began targeting Peter and I for our behavior and ignored the egregious behavior of one individual (ScienceApologist) who was subsequently banned for incivility for 72 hours.[2] The two of us were on one side of a contentious issue on the Quackwatch page and ScienceApologist was on the other side. It makes it appear as Ronz is being bias in his use of warnings. Anthon01 (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a little historical (hysterical?) perspective on this: User:Ronz has appeared at least three separate times on the WQA board in the last year, since I've started watching WQAs myself. He's been the subject of many complaints in the past - I stopped paying attention to the cases he's been involved in just because the arguments get so heated. Makes me wonder, though, how long people have to put up with incivility before more drastic action is taken... :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 07:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ronz edits articles that are often disputed. Civility problems crop up more often in such articles. Drastic action is determined by the quality, not quantity, of incivility (if you'll allow me to abuse the word "quality" for a moment). --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that only "excessive quality" (to coin an oxymoron!) motivates action, and not excessive quantity. I'm trying to do something about that. I do not believe that endless repetition of stealthily wikilegalistic sophistry should be defaulty and reliably tolerated. I don't care about any one miscreant, particularly, there are zillions, but dealing with one is entre' for clarifying the relevant policies and finding allies. Maybe we need a new policy WP:SOPHISTRY. There's a lot of work to do, but no, I can't accept that Ronz's behaviour is permissible. Pete St.John (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Sophistry and miscreancy are subjective, and honestly, Ronz isn't a bad contributor, he just butts heads with people (I've seen several of the other parties in WQA complaints too, Pete, this isn't a one way street here). I mean, look at his dispute with wikieditor9999. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't use a spam filter? You can't seriously want me to treat you the way he did me (not since I've given up on the article we were fighting over; he got what he wanted). If you would like me to emulate him, and you volunteer to prove by example that it's just hunky-dorey by you, I'll do it. I think I could script an emulator over a weekend, and you would not be able to tell the difference between the markhov-chained material from the original. Yes Ronz is bad. And no, I can't prove it by emulation, that was rhetorical; you'd merely feel it, which has no enforcement value. Ronz is unapolgetic spam. Pete St.John (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Spam? --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for a policy for sophistry in this sense, actually. But what I was refering to by "spam" is this: Ronz and I debated on talk pages (as per WP:TALK). The insults and innuendo escalated (and let's say partly my fault) to the point of my exapseration. So I refused to talk with him any more. He then persisted in posting to my talk that I wasn't responding to him, and since has cited WP:TALK as the excuse for why he has to post on my talk page. But that is exactly not what Wp:Talk says. We are supposed to try and resolve differences that way. We did, and I gave it up. Since then, what I've called "spam" others would call incivility. Incessant, unabashed incivility. Pete St.John (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay well this was an exercise in someone looking over a previous complaint to get used to the WQA. This is not the place for you to lodge complaints against Ronz. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is, this is Wikiquette Alerts, a place to lodge complaints, correct? At the insistence of others it's moved to an RfC, which is getting ignored (understandably). A user asked to help, and so I invited him to help at the RFC. You then defended Ronz (why? if this isn't the place?) by denying that his conduct is not actionable, as mere quantity and not quality. I rebutted that. Indeed, the place for it is the RFC. It's not clear to me why you defend Ronz everywhere but the RfC. Pete St.John (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a short comment. I have the impression that this is mainly an extreme clash of personalities between the two of you. (And I think I could easily get into the same situation with Ronz.) The most important thing is probably that both of you cool down. There were some encouraging signs from Ronz in that direction, and now according to his user page he is on a wikibreak. So the best thing is probably to let matters rest for now, calm down, and be optimistic. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Slow down there Pete, this is a talk page! Please read the beginning of this conversation. RP was just going over an archived incident to see how things work. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We are no longer addressing ReluctantPhilosopher, he replied above (and, thanks). I'm replying, here, to the defenses to Ronz posted here: e.g. Hans Adler, that it's just a personality clash and there is nothing actionable; and Cheeser1, that it's a matter of degree and matters of degree are not actionable. I'm more than happy to drop it here: it should be at the RfC. If you post your reasons why my RfC is spurious, at the RfC, then you save other editors the trouble; also of course I can rebut them where other editors can read them. We all win, right? So let's take it there, I'm with you wholeheartedly on leaving off this item of ReluctantPhilosopher's. Pete St.John (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of this board

I'm not convinced that we really need this page - it could entirely be served with a discussion on the users talk page, or on an admin noticeboard. The page seems to be for discussion misconduct (through incivility) of a user and I don't believe it has the required coverage to do this effectively. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A discussion on the user's talk page is typically one method employed by people who monitor this board. How do you suggest centralizing a group of people who volunteer to respond to civility concerns, so that users can easily contact them? That's what an alertboard is. The point of having this board is that administrative action isn't necessary - that's what the AN is for - and sometimes, people can step in and say "hey, that's really not nice and it's not allowed" and they shape up and we've avoided troubling the admins or using admin power when unnecessary. I have no idea what "required coverage" means though, but if you're suggesting that we don't fix every single problem that comes our way, I'll point out that neither do any of the noticeboards in this project. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly we (I still say "we" even though, as a WQA volunteer, I'm totally delinquent) have a lower success rate than a lot of places. But often that's because the problems that come here can't be solved through civil discussion, which is exactly why we're needed: it gives editors who are having trouble with other users a place where they can get takes from experienced editors. Otherwise they'd pretty much have to go straight to WP:RFC/U if they're having trouble with problematic but non-blockable users, which isn't really a viable option for inexperienced editors.

I came here seeking help with another user (who wound up being blocked as a sock, but I had no sock suspicions at the time). Just having an experienced user agree that the editor's behaviour was a problem helped enormously. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. WQA does have a lower "success rate," but how is that exactly defined? Many of the cases simply disappear -- the edit warring, incivility, etc. simply stops and nothing is followed up. Some are referred elsewhere, or to the dispute resolution process. Some are resolved and the editors are amicable again. It saves administrators a lot of grief at other places within the dispute resolution, or at ANI which is where a lot of incivil discussions tend to head unfortunately. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing that I'd like to point out is that WP:RFC/U requires at least two users to validate a request. This page is really the page to go to first if you don't have two or more users involved in a dispute and need another user to certify an RFC. Without this page you could be stuck, as you have a wikiquette issue, but can't file an RFC as you don't have another editor involved. --Nn123645 (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What I'm trying to point out is that you don't have enough people watching this page to look for behaviour that is really troubling. We have better forums for dealing with misconduct than this. Posting problems to AN or AN/I would get a wider audience to determine whether or not a users behaviour is problematic. This is how I see it; AN/I for immediate action where someone has been really incivil, or RFC/U where the problematic behaviour is more widely spread. I just think efforts could be focussed elsewhere, especially given not a lot of editors know about this page. This is no way meant as a stab in the back of the people that work the board, you do a damn fine job, but I think there's a better venue than this. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I keep a tab at ANI and AN, and most cases that are merely incivility or content disputes rarely generate a reply or action from an administrator though. I've taken it upon myself to at least reply and possibly take some action to those types of requests, especially if they have been pushed aside. I agree that not enough attention is paid at WQA; perhaps it can be made more prominent or renamed to something with more scope than etiquette. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The trouble as I see it is that WP:ANI is already inundated with a lot of stuff that shouldn't be there (it really should be only for stuff that admin buttons are needed to resolve), and initiating an WP:RFC/U is a process that is difficult for new users, is immediately very antagonistic, and requires at least one other user (which, as User:Seicer noted, there's no guarantee that a new user would normally be able to find). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you do seem to explain things very well there to be honest, I still don't think we need this board and reports would be better off somewhere else, but I respect the fact that new users would find it hard to go anywhere else without someone labelling them a troll (which they shouldn't be). Thanks for your time in answering, Ryan Postlethwaite 20:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

To me, that's simply a reason to make it easier for people to get here, not to scrap the page. All of the other channels (AN, ANI, RFCU, etc) are more formal, harder to navigate, administrative in nature, and (as far as I know) just as obscure as the WQA. I also agree with Seicer on the point that etiquette concerns (especially those not severe enough for blocks but bad enough to be a huge bother for the victim) and other less administrator-oriented concerns get ignored at the AN et al. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, could it be merged with Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal which is a little more formal and in depth? Not proposing it, per se, but curious. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is too formal, requires cooperation, and requires a specific person to spend alot of time mediating the dispute. If anything, the WQA is an important place for less-experienced mediators to cut their teeth on less intense disputes and problems. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I think this page is very valuable and definitely has a place here. As other editors have mentioned, this is a lot more informal than the other mediation/dispute resolution/misconduct reporting processes, and that is a good thing. It's not meant to be a place to report people. It provides perspective--if an editor is unsure of where to bring a problem, or if it's worth taking up with ANI/et al, he or she can bring it here and get feedback from others.

Also, a lot of the reports here involve new editors. Many newbies really don't know the ropes and don't know when they're crossing a line; if they're constantly reprimanded by the same people who are monitoring their edits and possibly reverting them, they get defensive very quickly. Taking them to ANI or RfC is a bit drastic and amounts to biting the newbies; whereas if they're directed to a WQA conversation, or editors alerted by a WQA step in to talk to them, they sometimes understand what they're doing wrong and stop. Similarly, in personality conflict cases with experienced editors who aren't really violating Wiki policies, sometimes WQA discussions can compel both or one party to back off.

IMHO, sending people directly to more formal dispute resolution/reporting will just overburden those pages--there will be a lot of reports that shouldn't be there--and will make people less likely to seek help when they need it.DanielEng (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification guys. Per chance, can we get a + tab added to WQA, or perhaps a predefined template like what WP:AN3 uses to make it a bit simplier and more standarized? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've found this forum helpful. Arguably, someone could sit at AN/I and refer a lot of misplaced posts here. On the other hand, I understand what Ryan's saying. This page would benefit from broader involvement and a tighter link to the next step in the dispute resolution process. Gnixon (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What should I do with this user?

User:Theaveng‎ had consistently edit the page Tifa Lockhart‎ by adding information that she got large breast eventhough it is against the consensus from the discussion on the talk page. The information was removed and re-added for a few times by other users and I stepped in and said no source, no inclusion on the edit summary. He came back to remove info on the hair and eye colour stating that it is not sourced. I placed an official source there and he used that source to place the large breast info in again saying thank you for providing a source. Since it is not in the source, I removed it stating so, yet he keep coming back and reverting the page. At his 4th revert, he warned me of reporting me as violating the WP:3RR rule. Since it is his 4th revert and it is just faking the source to contain his own speculation, I place a 3rr warning tag as well as a Addition of unsourced material without proper citations tag level 1 on his page. Someone else reverted his edit clearly stating the source does not contain what he has stated. Another user joking did a self revert on the page asking for a source about the gender of the character. I noticed this and place a source for that part(eventhough it was no longer needed) and self-reverted it since it sounds plain stupid to have a source tagging right next to the gender. User:Theaveng‎ came back, started doing a lot of edits on the page, which basically removed some other speculation so I did nothing about that, yet he then placed a 3RR warning on my talk page without signing the post. Since I did not revert over 3 times, and all of my reverts are purely removing disputed material by consensus, this tag is incorrect and I have removed it as well as placing a tempabuse tag on his page as well as reminding him to sign his post on talk pages and said at most he can do is tag me with a selfrevert warning(which I know I did). He removed all of the warning and notice tags on his page quoting incorrect use of warning. Since all of those are valid warnings, I revert that and thinking that someone from the admin should know about it and try to over watch this incident. Since it is mainly a problem of communication, I came here, what should I do? MythSearcher^talk 10:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Blatantly violating consensus to add information about large breasts is, as far as I'm concerned, childish vandalism. Next time he starts edit-warring by inserting that content, give him a level 4 vandalism warning. If he does it once more, report him to the WP:AIV. At least, that's my take. --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the other user reverted the page on him(or maybe due to the warnings I gave him), it seems like all he is doing now is WP:ABF and trying to remove things that is unsourced(no matter how common sense it is) and is still within normal editing interest other than abusing warning tags and removing warning tags on his own page. MythSearcher^talk 13:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean WP:POINT, not WP:ABF (that is a joke page...). I have left a warning, although I don't know what good it will do. --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I mean ABF, s/he left a comment in the talk page stating those who remove his edits are censoring wikipedia and s/he used other sources to try to fake his/her info is sourced, s/he at least did 3 things the ABF page listed and thus I used it as a reference of what he is doing. :P Of course s/he is making a point campaign, too. MythSearcher^talk 15:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Theaveng is another name that has come up in the past for me. I asked him to stop using edit summaries to discuss content issues in the 64-bit article back in November, when he was engaged in a similar edit war. At the time, he had at least one decent point, but his approach was seriously flawed, IMO. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

DarkFierceDeityLink has a vendetta against me of some kind

Let me give you the backstory real quick to understand the problem.

This morning I removed a few confirmed characters from the game Super Smash Bros. Brawl since up to that point I believed the sources were not Wikipedia standard. In any case the user quickly reverted my edits and went more to 4 reverts on that article page. But that is not my problem. My problem is that when I was JUSTIFYING my actions on that talk page he removed my comments. When an Administrator posted as well he REMOVED his comments but after a heads up from the Admin he restored said comments.

Now we had a resolution for that article, as I was in the wrong I cleaned up a portion of the article and another user cleaned up my wording, life goes on.

Then a few hours later when I have made a discussion on the main page of Super Smash Bros. Brawl he yet again brings up my actions from earlier this morning, citing that I was annoyed or mad at the roster. I have shown any signs of that and I have posted multiple times that I wanted it well-source, that was my only concern. On the same talk page for the article he yet again when back from hijacking my discussion to demeaning my character and if I responded in any way/shape or form he removes my statements. This has gone far enough, I am not letting him remove any more of my comments when I defend myself.

You can see the log here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Smash_Bros._Brawl&action=history

He constantly keeps removing statements and keeps ups his own, despite his frantic screams for 'ITS ON-TOPIC'!--HeaveTheClay (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

An RFC has been started over this

Please end the various discussions, stop forum-shopping. Let this go and let it run its course. See Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

arguing over super smash bros? yeah, um.... I'm actually at a loss for insults here. --mitrebox (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Scope of this board

I'm slightly unclear about the scope of this board. Several users come here to complain about content issues, not exactly breach of wikiquette. Are such issues to be addressed? Thanks. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No. I mean, it's that simple. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Notification

The procedures say, in part:

• Notify the reported user(s). Place a polite short statement on the user(s) talk page, or on the talk page of the article if several users are involved, to notify them that you have filed an alert here.

I've noticed, however, that in some cases this is counterproductive. I've had at least one in the past week where the other party was not notified. I was going to notify him or her, but instead I decided on review of the facts to advise the referring party to just drop the issue and to disengage from the problem editor. The referring party was very pleased with this advice, but I could tell from the edit histories that if the other editor were notified we were going to have a mess and I might end up as an alternate target of the problem editor's wrath - but that by dropping it, the other editor might just be able to WP:CHILL after awhile.

On the other hand, I've also run into one where editors who were not notified found out (through a simultaneous MedCab request - I closed the WQA as the mediator and mentioned it at the MedCab) and were so offended that they posted warnings and refused mediation.

To some extent it seems the very fact of filing a WQA is upsetting to some, even very experienced editors, maybe especially such editors - because in some cases the very fact someone posts here suggests they are not WP:AGF of the other user, the filing of the WQA suggests that the other user meant to be uncivil. So that the WQA process in some cases seems to actually be counterproductive as WP:DR. Wondering if anyone else has any thoughts on this. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think people who get offended when a WQA is filed against them should read WP:AAGF. If the WQA process was an exercise in violating WP:AGF, we wouldn't have it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and please note, in my last paragraph above, I wasn't actually espousing those views, I intended to mean that's the impression others have given recently as they came into a WQA steaming mad that it was occurring.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seen this go both ways--I think some people who post Alerts here feel that they're "getting someone in trouble" by doing so, and that we're going to hand out blocks or discipline people for them. I've also seen some editors get upset or offended when there's a WQA about them, perhaps because of the above, and perhaps also because of the reasons everyone's already mentioned. DanielEng (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the template?

How do you guys put the warning template on the talk pages of users found to have violated Wikiquette? Thanks. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There isn't one, to the best of my knowledge. WQA is informal and although it's part of the dispute resolution process, the point is to try to work things out and talk to the editors before formal warnings need to be issued, as far as I know. If you're looking for the set of regular templates for user warnings, they're at WP:WARN, but there's nothing there for WQA. Best, DanielEng (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:WARN as an NPA and an AGF template. No WP:CIVIL one though. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User:MattLewis entry

Would anyone object to my closing this particular discussion? The user can't seem to get that it's a content dispute, I'm not seeing any personal attacks and it seems as though it's going to go on and on. Best, DanielEng (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I did end up closing this Alert because it appeared that the OP was trying to use it as leverage to get the other editor to delete a section on his Talk Page. I thought it should be closed because it needed to be firmly stopped at that point. DanielEng (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I would support your closing that thread. It appeared to be quite unproductive, without end in sight. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Closing Dahn/Adrian

Closed this case because it seemed to need a firmly shut door--the OP was clearly not going to stop insisting we should handle the issue and was setting up a debate, and it was going to continue. Best, DanielEng (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not true. I asked if it was a case of incivility to be prevented from placing a dispute title template on a page less then 3 times in 24-hour period. Hell, it doesn't even contravene the 3RR rule, so I didn't have to ask. I was just trying to get a neutral opinion. Instead I had "a firmly shut door" in my face. So much for Wikiquette --mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 09:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You knew and cited policy, so you weren't asking a question about incivility. You stated that you wanted every single editor to leave your tag on the Chişinău article alone, which obviously is impossible. It was explained to you that there was already another open complaint about the tags on this page which had already received input from other editors and was still open, and it was also explained to you that what you were asking was a content dispute outside of this page's scope. When that neutral opinion was not in your favor and your post was marked as resolved, you tried to set up a debate about it. You might want to have a look at WP:TEND and see if there's anything in your recent edits and discussions that might resonate. Edit wars and clashes are unpleasant for everyone, and I'm sure you're not having fun here either. Filing irrelevant WQAs to try to get your way won't accomplish anything, though. You've been debating this same issue and edit warring in several other venues, and it's not appropriate to continue it here. Best, DanielEng (talk) 10:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. I have just finished reading all of WP:TEND (my first time). I am not guilty of any of the issues listed under Characteristics of problem editors. However, the other parties that filed the first alert against me were the first to remind me of the 3RR, and that it was a 24-hour rule. The other edits can do the 3RR because there are four of them doing the reverts! Now, isn't that interesting (and I can't see their reverts on my watched list?!). I will return the favour and give you something to read which often comes up in an issue you feel strongly about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrg3105 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. You know Daniel, if you are not prepared to listen (read), then maybe you should not be in conflict resolution role. If this is the case, spare yourself the time.

You can just delete everything and ignore. You don't have to listen. You can just imagine whatever you want and dismiss me because I choose to stand by my words. Ultimately I am more concerned with the just outcome of the process rather then he dispute template. Maybe this is a unique experience for you.

I promise I will not hold it against you. The issues will be resolved one way or another in Village Pump, so this experience is simply adding to my encounters with Wikiureaucracy.

a. Another administrator advised me to go here; I didn't even know of this method of resolution existence until the other editors filed an alert first. Now, if I am such a "bad boy" why would I be the second to file an alert?

b. "every single editor...editing (that page)". As an administrator you (I imagine) can add a template in talk not to remove the dispute template until a resolution is available?

c. What was the significance of "still open"? Their issues with me were entirely different from my issue with them. It seems to me that you and Cheeser1 failed to understand this.

d. I never asked anyone to rule on anything concerning the content of the article. I simply advised that there was another issue with content being resolved elsewhere.

e. there was no "neutral opinion" given. I was told to refer to the section above! The section above dealt with different issues, and I largely accepted that advice given by yourself.

f. How can you resolve anything without confirming that both parties accept the resolution?

g. WP:TEND!!! I don't know if I should laugh or cry! I have been looking for something like this to point the other editors to for several days! "Tendentious editing is editing which is partisan, biased, skewed—in other words, it does not conform to the neutral point of view." My God! The other editors insist that every English speaking reader of Wikipedia must learn how to use Romaian alphabet! If that is not "partisan, biased, skewed—in other words, it does not conform to the neutral point of view", I don't know what is. However, my issue was ONLY with the removal of the dispute template.

h. I rarely get into edit wars because I use sources. My numerous request for sources were dismissed as being unreasonable after ONE was produced compared to dozens I provided.

i. Filing irrelevant WQAs? Lets see. WQA is for resolving issue of civility. I have most uncivilly had a dispute template removed regardless of the convention not to do so until all parties agree the dispute is resolved. If issues of uncivil behaviour can not be resolved in WAQ, what is relevant?!

j. No, I have been debating another issue (brought up by the first alert against me) in ONE place, and not edit-warring at all. This is the ONLY place I have raised the issue of dispute template removal until I had a door shut in my face.

Amazingly I was just told by Cheeser1 that he/she didn't see a difference between the two complaints! Maybe should have expressed myself in mathematical formula? Oh well, Anarchy can have no justice.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 11:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, it's not really going to help you any if you follow up your lengthy complaint about your redundant complaint by taking a nice personal attack / cheap shot at somebody who tried to respond to your complaint productively - by asking you to consolidate two related discussions. --Cheeser1 (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

PS removing "dispute templates" is perhaps disruptive, but it is decidedly not a WQA issue. --Cheeser1 (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• sigh* You're really not listening to anything anyone is saying or writing, so this is going to be my last attempt at talking this over with you.

First of all, I don't know where you got the idea that I'm an admin, but I'm not. Even if I were, no, I couldn't add a "do not remove!" tag to your template. That's not a civility issue, is it? There's another forum for page protection that is at the top of the WQA page, and nobody would protect an article in a case like this. Page protection is for vandalism, not to keep an article static until you get the outcome you want. Again, content, nothing more, and not in our area.

Also, in regards to your template: you claimed originally that you only placed the template to solicit feedback from other editors. If this is the case, there's no issue to be discussed, or it's being discussed elsewhere, and you shouldn't mind the template being removed. Furthermore, looking at the article, it appears that the issue was discussed, and several editors are reverting you--not just one. The discussion happened, it just didn't turn out in your favor. Removing templates from discussions that have concluded is not uncivil, even if you are not pleased with the result or don't personally consider the discussion closed. Again, content, not civility.

It's fine to file a WQA, but you have to accept that it might not turn out the way you want in the end. You were directed to the open WQA about your issue, and you chose not to bring your issues there, but to try to debate. Whether or not you want to see yourself in the WP:TEND article, you might want to reread this particular point: You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people. How many forums have you brought this debate, and its related issues, to thus far? EC, CONSENSUS, 3RR, here, the debated article's talkspace? How much consensus have you been able to raise? Not too much, eh? I'll repeat what I said before. If you don't have consensus, you'll have to accept that and move on. If you don't want to accept consensus and instead decide to engage in disruptive editing and personal attacks, it's your choice, but you probably won't care for the outcome there, either. At the end of the day, it's the Internet, and it's really not worth getting worked up about. Getting worked up and reiterating your points numerous times isn't going to make anyone here reconsider your complaints. It's time to move on. Go edit some totally unrelated articles or take a break, but move on. Best, DanielEng (talk) 12:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

New policy suggestions

In light of recent events on WQA--not just one, but a bunch of postings that really shouldn't be here--I'm wondering if it would be worth it to work on creating some more concrete rules for Alerts that are posted here. Hopefully in doing so we can save ourselves time, save the editors who are posting inappropriate Alerts time, and make the page run more smoothly. My suggestions are as follows:

• One forum only. If an issue is already being handled at another forum, such as WP:ANI, it should not be addressed here as well. I know most of our WQA clerks already pay attention to this, but it would be good to add it as an official notice. Why?
  • WP:FORK. Putting the same discussion in several places makes it both difficult to follow and properly address, and Wiki doesn't like forked discussions.
  • Forum shopping hurts the process and the user. An editor who throws the same issue into several different forums is much less likely to be taken seriously, even if he or she has a legitimate issue to present. A responding editor who sees the same issue in different places may ignore it on the idea that someone in the other forum is handling it.
  • Issues may be too large for WQA. If an issue has already escalated to the point of needing administrator intervention on ANI, AN/V, mediation or a RfC, a friendly note from a WQA clerk is unlikely to make much headway into the situation. In addition, serious incivility and other such issues are routinely handled by AN/I admins, and are also likely to be discussed in ongoing RfCs or mediation disputes. There isn't much we can do for those situations, save send people to administrators anyway.

• Reports must be filed by the affected parties. Again, we usually don't run into this much, but after a recent complaint that was anonymously filed on someone else's behalf, perhaps this should be stated more clearly: you cannot file WQAs for other people. This is in line with policy on RfC, which requires the involved parties to personally file and certify the disputes. Any WQAs that are filed by others should be closed immediately.

• What we can do, and what we can't. Perhaps this should also be stated more clearly:
  • We can: give outside perspective on disputes, offer suggestions on where to take issues that need additional help or intervention, and leave notes for editors who may need to be reminded of etiquette issues or who may not know them.
  • We cannot: Block users, fulfill administrative tasks, address serious incivility or personal attacks, or intervene in content disputes.

Any suggestions or comments are welcome. DanielEng (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, for the most part. The one thing different though, I think blatant violations should be open for reporting by third parties, but stuff that could go either way should only be an issue if the affected party objects. For example, if someone posts "DanielEng is a big loser who should quit wiki and die" I think the WQA can be filed by anyone. If someone posts "Hey Daniel, you're a total nerd" that could be an insult, or a friendly joke, or any number of things - you'd have to report it. I'd rather have no policy than a hard-line one that turns away what would be meaningful reports. We can always close unnecessary ones as "not really a problem unless the affected party considers it hostile" or something, and request maybe that the affected party weigh in or re-open the complaint if necessary. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good point, and you're right. Perhaps then we should add something that if you are filing a complaint for someone else, you have to specify that, ie, the reporting editor is still responsible for signing and acknowledging that they filed the alert.DanielEng (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also add one that says do not file WQA complaints against people for their responses to a WQA. People who file complaints, or about whom others file complaints, have made a seriously bad habit of filing retaliatory complaints (not to mention otherwise harassing) WQA respondents. You tell someone to obey WP:CIVIL, and they say that doing so is incivility. If they think there are abuses going on at the WQA that aren't being handled by the dozen editors who frequent this board, and more who pop in from time to time, they should either file a real complaint at the ANI or check their perspective. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. I think that one of the reasons more editors don't help out on this page is that they've seen what's happened to others here--they've responded to complaints and there's been retaliation. DanielEng (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree that editors should not post here for resolution of an issue on another board, however Wikiquette issues could come up which are unrelated to the primary issue which may require attention. For example, imagine a situation where a dispute about editor X's arrogant attitude was being discussed on WP:ANI by editors X, Z, A, B and D(note I know that isn't an issue to discuss on ANI, but people do anyway). Editor Y appears and makes a minor perhaps inadvertant attack on X. So long as X isn't asking for intercession/resolution in the original discussion it seems like the best place to address Y's attack is here. Anynobody 01:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see where your point fits. I think if the issue is totally unrelated to the complaint at hand, it can be reported here, but I think that we shouldn't exaggerate such an exception - it's far more likely that the incivility will take place as a small component of the preexisting problem. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. If it's a completely unrelated issue (for instance, someone's discussing something on, say, WP:RSN and starts making personal attacks), it could perhaps be brought here. As Cheeser1 says, though, most of the time incivility is part of a larger issue, and is best addressed with the rest of the complaint. And if there's a RfC or AN/I discussion already in progress and there's incivility there, it's likely to be spotted and discussed then and there by the editors and admins handling the thread.DanielEng (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggested addition to the main page

Based on the above, here is what I would like to add to the main page, under the are you in the right place? section.

Please keep in mind that WQA is a non-binding, informal forum.

What WQA can do:

• Intervene as a neutral third party to talk to editors who are engaging in incivility, or who might be new or unaware of Wiki policies.
• Provide neutral perspective on issues of incivility.
• Give guidance on where on Wikipedia to take a particular problem.

What WQA CANNOT do:

• Give or enforce blocks, bans or binding disciplinary measures.
• Intervene in content disputes, extreme personal attacks, vandalism or 3RR incidents.
• Mediate longterm, ongoing conflicts between two users.

To add in the section about how to file an alert:

If your specific issue is already being discussed elsewhere, please do not file a WQA. It is much easier for other users to help you when your dispute is being handled in one forum, not ten. If an issue is already serious enough to have gone to WP:ANI or WP:RFC, there's not much we can do to help.

If you're filing a report to complain about a WQA editor who responded to a previous WQA alert, please stop now, and think. If you were contacted by a WQA volunteer based on a previously filed alert, they were acting as a neutral third party and probably have no interest in personally entering into a dispute with you. Asking you to respect WP:CIVIL or telling you not to make personal attacks does not itself constitute any sort of incivility or personal attack.

Comments, et al--please feel free to edit. If there's consensus, I'd like to try to get this onto the main page soon. Best, DanielEng (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• I generally agree with this in practice, I haven't had chance to digest all the details though and would like to see some discussion before we post it.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• With respect to the points regarding not filing here if you already filed somewhere else, I definitely agree - and it should go both ways, don't file here and then go to WP:TINMC before anyone can address things here. It creates a mess. I am involved in one that was filed both places and when I, as the prospective mediator, saw it here, I summarily closed it and notified all parties. Unfortunately, now the parties may refuse to mediate. It would have been much easier if they had chosen one forum from the start only moving to another when recommended to do so by the neutrals.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I would add that a response to a WQA report is not a personal attack - telling you "you are being uncivil," if you are being uncivil, is not a personal attack. People have a weird habit of saying "Me not civil? Well then neither are you!" Not sure how to phrase it, but it seems relevant to the last point. I've modified the above to reflect that (I assume that part of your comment is open to group editing?). --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please edit as needed--I definitely don't want this to be a solo effort. I agree completely. Best, DanielEng (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly I was addressing this in part, in a slightly different context, in the comment below while you were commenting here.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• I am not too happy with the last point. I wouldn't like this to look like an invitation to the difficult people who frequent this board. They might imagine that volunteering here gives them immunity and the chance to game the WQA process. This can probably be avoided by rephrasing, but I am not sure how to do it. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As phrased, it is not carte blanche. It just says not to file a WQA about someone intervening in a civility problem. If someone's actions fall outside such appropriate activity, then it's still just as open for reporting as anything else. I understand your concern, as I've seen a number of users come here due to a complaint against themselves, and then start making a muss of other stuff, but I don't think what's written there would permit such a thing. It really only applies to, say, this sort of thing (at least, based on how I read it). If you can make it clearer, feel free to rephrase it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I am just concerned that a certain percentage of our clientele here will think as follows: "This guy has the nerve of telling me what he thinks is wrong with me, and now he is immune? Aha! It's because of his self-assumed powerful position here." Of course it would be no problem to get rid of any troublemakers who might think this is the next step in their career, but they would do a lot of damage by meddling in cases where they actually are more or less neutral. We could make it clear it doesn't work that way by saying that the proper thing in such a situation is to do next step in the conflict resolution process. I have added "and think" at the end of the first sentence. I hope this makes it clear enough that the rule is not for particularly egregious cases. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I have instituted these changes/additions. If I messed it up, or if there are minor changes, please make them. If there are serious issues, or if there are any after-the-fact objections to this entire thing, revert and (continue or being to) discuss the issue here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I put the new additions in a highlighted box--hopefully that will compel people to take notice of them, since it doesn't seem to have been the case lately. DanielEng (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)