Wikipedia talk:Wikiquette assistance/Archive 4

Archiving

Is the archiving bot broken, or just way behind? There are a lot of sections here now past their pull date. --Una Smith (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Archiving had been set for 5 days ... I reset to 3 days. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:PAIN?

I notice this board it is basically just a reincarnation of WP:PAIN. Would it be worthwhile to add a link to that closed intervention board somewhere on this board? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this Wiki-historical reminder. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

;-) - <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 06:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, WQA came before PAIN. WQA started in May 2005; PAIN started in October 2005. Maurreen (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Instructions

Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Activist_personal_attacks brought up something I've been thinking about a lot since been coming off wikibreak. Should the volunteer instructions require diffs?

• On the one hand, we don't want to discourage newbies getting hostile treatment from having an easy to use avenue to get support.
• On the one hand, many of the recent posts have been made by experienced users making a vague reference and linking to a long content dispute. It's a bit much to expect to the volunteer editors here to wade through all that to find the alleged wikiquette violation. The some posts often contain prose which, to me, indicates the user is not really looking for a peaceful resolution so much as punishment for the other editor; this makes me even less inclined to want to help. Requiring diffs would help focus the discussion. Gerardw (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The posting instructions do ask for diff's: "A concise way to do this is to include diffs that show the problem. (A guide to creating diffs is here)". Now, that said, it is always vital to read "around" the problem too, in order to gain context. Too many times, however, you merely get a link to a wall of text. Those of you trying to help should not be forced to guess where the "problem" is. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The current instructions suggest diffs as one way to provide a description; I'm asking for opinions on requiring them. Gerardw (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no need to require: if you are hit with a wall of text, you ask for a diff, and give them the link as to what you mean by that. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes a diff is not even the best way to point to the evidence, for example if it is all confined to a single talk page section. What strikes me as more important is to give a more definite indication that WQA is not intended for problems that require admin intervention. Looie496 (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Undoing close

The purpose of the Stuck tag is outlined at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/Volunteer_instructions#Closing reports. It is generally the case a third party editor who monitors WQA does the closing. The comment portion should be a suggestion for further dispute resolution, not a summary which may or may not be the consensus of the editors here. Gerardw (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that the close was improper, reflecting the views of one biased individual rather than an uninvolved party. Besides, we're still waiting for responses regarding Ncmvocalist's incivility problems and Good Olfactory's problems with abusing blocking authority while in a conflict. Alansohn (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

We often provide summaries, but please change mine if you feel it is inadequate. When a discussion starts to generate more incivility than solutions, it is time to close down and move on. Take this to AN/I if you want to discuss it further. But we're done here. Eusebeus (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have reclosed the discussion before it degenerates any further. Eusebeus (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There's not a consensus for close. WQA is voluntary, if an editor does not feel continuing the discussion is helpful, they're not required to participate. Gerardw (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:User DGAF

Hi. Are users who include Template:User DGAF, or one of its derivatives Template:User DGAF2 or Template:User DGAF3, or one of their redirect targets User:Ling.Nut/User DGAF or User:Ling.Nut/User DGAF2, on their user pages, in some manner uncivil? They appear to be. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Not unless it's being referred to when communicating with a particular individual. Expressing apathy to no audience inparticular isn't uncivil. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete

Can someone justify the existance of this page? Should it have a giant edit notice that says "JUST IGNORE IT," as opposed to allowing people to file reports? Hipocrite (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It works very well sometimes [1], admittedly, not terribly often. Frequently it allows things to die down. Yes, often it appears one or both parties are more interested in slinging mud than actually resolving problems amicably. Sometimes editors come complaining about other editor's beams and up unhappy. (There exists notes at the top of the page that this happens sometimes but it's not clear how thoroughly that section is read -- many times posters skip the part about notify the other party.) Gerardw (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I was beginning to think the same thing (about the redundancy of this page). The essence is retrospective (i.e. complaining about a past actin), rather than prospective (what are we going to do to fix the problem) - and move all discussion to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. We desperately need fewer boards to post things and concentrate rather than dilute onlookers and helpers. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree completely. People need to complain about something before they expect something that will fix the problem. This noticeboard is a preliminary step in dispute resolution; people complain about incivility so that helpers can try to fix the problem by assessing the problem, and persuading people to voluntarily adjust their conduct short of other means (or referring them to the appropriate venue). It is not limited to focussing on content matters like mediation, and it doesn't ignore conduct. Ironically, we still get complaints about inadequate management of incivility on those same mediation pages and admin noticeboards. Accordingly, I don't think removing this board will help this project in the slightest. That said, some disputes are more suited for mediation where discussion is only heated purely due to the lack of resolution of the content matter, but there aren't any real conduct issues that need to be addressed at that moment - those are well-suited for mediation, and if either the mediation committee or cabal aren't running low on those resources, I'll refer or move more of those over there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

My response to Hipocrite is as follows. I see signs that many of the Users on Wikipedia are male, anglo-saxon, white and aged somewhere between 20 and 40. These people have an abundance of self-confidence and display assertiveness in any threatening situation. They would probably endorse a motto that says “Everyone is welcome at Wikipedia, so long as they are just like us!”

Fortunately, the Wikipedia community is very diverse. It is an international project. There are Users who aren’t male, aren’t anglo-saxon, aren’t white and don’t respond to a threatening situation by displaying assertiveness. As a result, what one User sees as a reasonable response to a threatening situation, another User sees as a breach of etiquette. We are a diverse community.

The fourth of Wikipedia’s five pillars is civility; therefore it is essential that Wikipedia have a place where perceived breaches of civility can be aired. On some occasions the report of a perceived breach is well founded, and the offending User can be made aware that some aspect of his behaviour is not welcome at Wikipedia. On other occasions, the perceived breach is not well founded, and the reporting User can be assisted to get used to the idea that there is a certain amount of rough-and-tumble at Wikipedia, and their perception of a breach of etiquette is not really a breach at all. Dolphin (t) 06:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This page can't resolve long-standing conflicts of an ethnic or political nature, but they can let people let off steam and maybe help diffuse bad situations. What's needed are some administrators willing to act as umpires in each dispute. Figureofnine (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Instantaneous communication

WQA users need to notify editors -- but perhaps we could give them more than a few minutes to do so?

If you're trying not to template the regulars, or if you're unfamiliar with the software, or if you're considering whether your initial post needs to be revised, or if you get interrupted by your real-world life, it realistically might take half an hour, or even longer, to get a notification posted.

I know that this is all second nature to our "expert" editors, and some of us are willing to dodge the silliness by setting up all the messages in separate browser windows so that everything can happen within seconds, but I don't believe that we are reducing disputes or making Wikipedia a more friendly, civil place by landing on editors who don't issue exactly the notification we expect to see, on the specific page we expect to be used, within some unwritten time limit.

The actual rule, for those who haven't read it for a while, is "Notify the reported user(s)." It is not "Notify the reported user on the reported user's talk page within X minutes of the first time you saved a comment on this page." A note on any page, posted an hour -- or even a day -- after (or before) posting here actually does comply with the current requirements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

While strictly it doesn't give a time limit, the point is to inform the user immediately after starting the thread; the user about which the report was filed should be informed of the thread before any discussion starts; i.e. before the first person replying can complain that they haven't been informed. It's not productive to hold a discussion about a user's incivility if the subject hasn't been told there is an issue. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Administrator coverage of page

I have a more general, rhetorical question: why don't more administrators patrol this page and levy penalties as necessary? There's not much peon editors can do. Figureofnine (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is to provide help resolving disputes, and forwarding disputes to other relevant noticeboards. It's not an administrator noticeboard, and reports filed here are those which aren't seeking admin action or blocks, simply help from other users. In addition, it's not appropriate for an admin to "levy penalties": blocks are used to prevent disruption to the project, not to penalise users. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand what you're saying, and recently I personally reported a legal threat mentioned here to ANI. But I get the impression that people come here in the expectation of direct action. Figureofnine (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Just as an example of what I'm saying, I notice that just recently an administrator came here with a complaint. I just thought that maybe if administrators patrolled here, they could swoop in and warn people who are being attacking. Just my 2 centimos. Figureofnine (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right, Figureofnine, or at least that's my impression. Given that expectation, I think people get frustrated here a lot, which is a shame considering that the ultimate goal should be to help defuse frustration. I'm not sure what can be done to rectify that, except invite more administrators to participate here, or try to make it clearer in the page's guidance that your problem probably isn't going to get solved by coming here alone. — e. ripley\^talk 18:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Sometimes there doesn't seem to be a need for a referral, but for an administrator to step in and say "stop it." An excellent example is Dougweller's complaint at the bottom of the page currently. Someone needs to go to the editor in question and say, "stop making comments like that." I could do so, but the editor in question really needs to have an administrator issue a warning. If this goes to ANI it might be lost in the shuffle. Figureofnine (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Useful template?

I realize the page is already crowded, but I wonder if it would be useful to put the "civility" template [2] at the bottom. I just discovered the existence of this template. It's a good list of essays on civility. Figureofnine (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Templates are troublesome, as is civility. I hope you all have a lovely day. Romanfall (talk) 06:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Archive 91

I was looking for the Zachary Klaas thread and couldn't find it in the latest archive. I discovered that Archive 91 was not in the navigation box. Is there a time lag between when a thread is archived and when the archive appears in the navigation box. Vyeh (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It turns out the archive navigation template has to be manually updated for every new row. Vyeh (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Lengthy instructions

•  Done New interface created by Ncmvocalist Netalarm^talk 04:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Would anyone be opposed to a new design for the main page? I'm thinking of something similar to the conflict of interest noticeboard, which I've just finished designing and brought live. The reason for my request? I feel that the main page of this project is too crowded and discourages new users from reading it due to the amount of information presented. If it was just a few sentences that got straight to the point, most users would read it. So, should a new home page be designed? Netalarm^talk 23:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Notice

Evidently, there is a proposed new process board for WP:Etiquette or WP:AGF issues, which I stumbled upon by following links at the former guideline this morning. I don't see that this has been widely publicized and felt it might be of interest to those who monitor this board. Please see Wikipedia:Antiquette. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Related to this, I think it may be better to move this board to Etiquette/Noticeboard, as is done with most noticeboards. Although this move isn't necessary, doing so (or something similar) would make this a bit more professional. Not formal, but professional. The reason I say this is because the term "Wikiquette" is used in the title - a made up term that's not used elsewhere. Netalarm^talk 02:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I've marked it as failed, as there appears to be no chance of this being approved (no support, strong opposition, bemusement at the reason for this). Fences&Windows 19:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a question...

• What exactly is the difference between this page and ANI? Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Have you read the instructions on both pages before asking this question? Which differences do you not understand between both pages? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
    • It was a simple question; what's your problem? Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This one is " an early, informal, and non-binding step in the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. The aim of this page is to move disputes towards resolution, not to punish misbehaviour. Users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors. Users, particularly those who are uninvolved, are encouraged to give their perspective/advice, offer informal mediation, talk to editors who might be new or unaware of Wiki policies, and/or give guidance on where on Wikipedia to take a particular problem." At ANI you are asking for administrator action! Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Lesson learned

I thought that this was where breaches of etiquette would be addressed.[3] Apparently you're too busy to respond to all requests. Next time I will go to ANI where I know they will respond, even if it's only to tell me to stop complaining. Too late for that on this occasion, of course. BillMasen (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I've seen plenty of posts to ANI fail to get responses. Probably a higher fraction than happens here, even. Looie496 (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a choice between this and ANI. This is an early dispute resolution method. ANI is where you go when you need administrator action in response to particular incidents. Admins are not, by default, dispute moderators. Swarm ^X 02:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Question about civility

User:Hammersoft is apparently on the image copyright group. The group is presently on a tear to tag and remove images that don't have the correct copyright notices applied or to the recently changed copyright rules. While this in itself is relatively uncivil in and of itself (they used to post a comment on the talk page and then remove the image, but now they're removing the images, but that's not the issue). Any editor who wishes to enter into dialogue with the editor will see a very confusing warning on the user's talk page which includes:

Attention REVISIONUSER. Say hello to my pet Lorem Ipsum. Please follow these instructions. To submit a new message to my talk page, please:

Complete form TP1093-A, sub form 173.1 available from your local planning office.

Once your request has been responded to, please use form TPR-A-176.23 for submitting new talk page items.

Please acknowledge and follow standard Hammersoft talk page policy, which includes:

• Form TPR-A-176.24 is the companion form to .23 and must be submitted in triplicate to your superiors. Failure to do so may result in your post being deleted.

While it's funny to a user who is familiar with the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, that may not include all users. In light of the current copyright compliance tear, it may contravene the WP:NEWBIES guideline. If I'm out-to-lunch (which happens quite often) feel free to say so. If not, please take a moment to comment on that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

We are talking about User talk:Hammersoft/Editnotice which a user sees when they add a comment to the user's talk page. My feeling is that such jokes should be removed. They are just confusing or even irritating, depending on how much time is lost wondering whether to read the thing. I suppose someone should discuss this with Hammersoft, and progress from there. I would say this is not so much a question of civility, but more about accepting that talk pages are for communication, and while some will find the joke wonderful, others won't. Johnuniq (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I just made a mistake

Resolved

 – If so, it is invisible

I entered the user name 'Timeshift' in the field on the project page, thinking it was a search for a user name, I hope I have not inadvertently CREATED a report on that user. I would much rather fess up to a human error than impugn a contributor's reputation. Can some please advise how best to proceed? Thanks Comes.amanuensis (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Any action you take will show up in your Contributions, so you can always check there if you think you have screwed up. I don't see anything problematic. Looie496 (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! Comes.amanuensis (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

How to help out?

Is there any more guidance on this than the project page and Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/Volunteer_instructions? It explains the technical things to do, templates to use and so on, but doesn't really explain what's expected of a helper in terms of how to resolve the disagreements, how to know when matters should be referred elsewhere, what to do when one person has been uncivil, and so on. I was thinking of helping but don't dare jump in, in case I do it all wrong.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

When a user comes to WQA, they're looking for outside perspective and advice. All you have to do is look over a dispute in a neutral way (the reporting user isn't always in the right), offer your opinion on it and advise the parties, if you can, on how you think the dispute can be resolved. For example, if an IP is being reported, you can simply drop a warning template by their talk page. If it's a relatively experienced editor reporting another one, try to determine who, if anyone, is being uncivil. Share your opinion on the matter. Sometimes, the outside perspective alone will be enough to get someone to realize they're behaving inappropriately, and they may apologize and remedy the behavior. Sometimes, if they just drag their dispute onto a WQA thread you'll have to advise them to proceed to a more formal method of dispute resolution. Sometimes all you can do is strongly urge candidates to stay away from each other. And sometimes you just have to tell them that the issue is relatively minor and they should just move on (with caution). There's no standard procedure, it's a really informal discussion and a basic dispute resolution method. In a nutshell, use your judgment and you can't go wrong. Regards, Swarm ^X 00:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No they aren't; they're looking to have their adversary punished. Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you speak from experience here Malleus, or just from observation? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Both. Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

People who come here are generally doing so in good faith looking for a resolution. However, if the person being reported feels that it's just an appeal to the masses in search of punishment, they don't have to contribute to the discussion. If one side doesn't intend to discuss the issue here, the thread is closed. Swarm ^X 00:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but it doesn't correspond with my experience. Malleus Fatuorum 01:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. No doubt my opinion has been as affected by positive experiences with WQA as yours has been with negative ones. However, I think that tells us that WQA volunteers should strive to avoid making WQA an unpleasant experience for anyone. Another point, Physics, is that rather than bashing an uncivil user (i.e. "Your comments to Malleus were completely inappropriate and out of line. You need to stop immediately and apologize."), a polite, unemotional and detached tone in your comments is going to be many times more effective (i.e. "Malleus was offended by your comment. Please don't call other users hurtful names like that, and focus on discussing content, rather than contributors." or something of the like). Try to work against those perceptions such as Malleus's. Swarm ^X 19:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Jump in! It's Wikipedia, be bold. That said, here's an idea of what you're getting into. (This is my entirely unscientific opinion based on personal observation from periodic intervals of monitoring WQA. I've been off recently so it may be dated by a couple months ... but over the years I haven't seen the overall pattern change very much.)

• Many editors posting reports don't follow the directions at the top of the page. Diffs won't be posted, the other party won't be notified, etc. (A former WQA volunteer created this template to post on users who don't notify the other party: {{subst:User:Bwilkins/didnotnotify|WQA}} )
  • Do what you will. I'll tend to just skip complaints without diffs, unless it looks interesting to me. Sometimes I find it easier to post the you've been brought up at WQA notice myself than get the complainant to do so.
• Frequently two editors will just continue a dispute started elsewhere here. The symptoms include frequent posting and counter-posting by the two individuals without waiting for any third party editors to intervene.
  • If everyone ignores them long enough, they'll get tired and go away.
• Frequently an editor will be looking to get another editor hammered (see don't follow directions, above)
  • I usually just comment on the behavior, but sometimes I'll mention the point of the list isn't that, or tell the user they can take the issue to AN/I. (Depending on the circumstance, I might say something like: If you're not satisfied with the response you're getting here, you can take the issue to AN/I. While I'm not an admin, based on past experience, I don't think you'll be successful)
• Sometimes an editor's behavior will be so over the top an admin will step in with a pointed warning or a block. (While, by design, admins don't frequently comment, it seems to me there are some who lurk/monitor the list).
  • Obviously there's nothing left to do, then.

Not very encouraging, is it? But sometimes:

• It actually works as designed. Two good editors have gotten into a tangle because of communication style, interpretation differences, etc. The intervention of third parties sorts things out and both parties go away happy. Cool when it happens. Usually doesn't. 1 to 5% of the time, maybe.
• One of the editors is being in a jerklike manner below the threshold of being blocked. Enough third party editors sending them similar messages gets the point that they should alter their behavior.
• An editor isn't as polite as some of us would like WP to be, but acts within the limits of community standards. We can at least validate the other party's position and provide moral support of sorts.
• There's really a content dispute under the veneer of a civility question, and we can direct folks to WP:THIRD or RFC.

Be forewarned, I've been accused of all sorts of things (sockpuppet, meatpuppet, hidden agenda, asshole, blah blah blah), been followed to my talk page, had users demand I respond to a endless series of tendentious questions, etc. (According to my talk page archives, I think I'm personally responsible for two, or maybe three, editors, leaving Wikipedia.) Since I'm relatively thick skinned, this generally doesn't bother me, but it bothers some people. Being human, I do start to get irritated after while; I've found just not posting during these times is a wonderful remedy.

To address your question more specifically, there is a range of behavior that is considered acceptable. There's no bright line definition of what is civil and what is not, no universal consensus. So decide for yourself, and just state your opinion.

Disclaimer: This is from the perspective of a not an admin, ain't gonna be an admin, editor. If you're an editor who thinks they may want that role in the future, this advice may not be ideal. Gerardw (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Archive nav box incomplete

Resolved

The archive nav box for this article's archived pages at Template:Wikiquette_alerts/Archive_navbox only goes up to 100 but there are at least 102 archives. The most recent archives are not accessible via the nave box. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

probably a technical problem. I'll look into it. --Ludwigs2 19:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

ah, it's been handled by someone else.--Ludwigs2 19:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

editintro Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/Template2

I should point out that I've created the editintro Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/Template2 - this appears when you click the "create a report" button. Rd232 ^talk 02:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC in progress

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/dispute_resolution#Why_Wikiquette_Alerts_doesn.27t_suck_as_much_as_ya.27ll_think_it_does Gerardw (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

editing closings

I think per WP:BRD editing a closing statement is fine, but it needs to be done in a way the accurately reflects the opinion of the closer(s). If there's no consensus on closing, just little the thread go idle will allow Misza Bot to archive it, which is fine. Gerardw (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether the closer personally disagrees with what else has been said in the thread is probably better expressed in the thread itself rather than merely in the closing, unless some new information has come to light (eg; sockpuppetry). Other than that, it's important that points of agreement and advice is accurately provided in that closing rather than focusing solely on the opinion of the closer. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the closing statement is particularly important at all. The goal is that all the participants walk away happy. Primary reason for closing is that reviewers don't expend time reviewing a resolved or dead issue. Gerardw (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing the goal; the dispute is over how to achieve that goal. That goal (participants walking away happy) cannot be achieved if a volunteer is making inaccurate assertions in a closing. One example is marking a WQA as not being a wikiquette issue, even though it clearly falls within the scope of the conduct examined at this step in DR (that is, it is not RFA or AIV, so misusing a template in that way can frustrate and/or mislead users). Another example is where a dispute is being marked resolved when it clearly is still not resolved and has been escalated accordingly (due to insufficient handling at a lower level in DR). That makes everyone spend more time, not less, and is unhelpful. Where a volunteer is failing to do the work to accomplish that goal, it is unhelpful on more than one level. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

"Avoid filing a report if..."

First current entry is: *The specific issue is already being discussed elsewhere. Some naive people might think this includes the page where there is discussion of someone or some group's bad behavior, where there is no one who disapproves of it. Doesn't this need a qualifier?? Like: elsewhere, excluding talk or other pages where obviously bad behavior is tolerated or encouraged. Or something similar? (Speaking from experience ;-( CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the idea is to avoid having several discussions about the same problem, or forum shopping when a discussion is going badly in one forum, then starting second, or even a third, until the desired result is obtained. Obviously, however, a low quality, out of policy, discussion results in the temptation to do that. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't clear that I was thinking of discussion of a comment in the talk page where it originated (or the Rfc, AfD, etc main page) and that's what needs to be specified. Even as an assertive person it was a couple years before I brought one of the many insulting comments I ran into to this Alerts page. Many people quit well before that point because of such comments. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

We'll just have to make sure that when and if they do get here, that they get results. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)