Wikipedia talk:Wikiquette assistance/Archive 3

Process disputed

We've got one perfectly fine lynch mob, why do we need another? This is basically a Bad Idea™ - RFCs have happened just to put the noose around an editor's neck, and this is worse as there's no certification needed to soapbox. Will ^(talk) 00:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw the tag you put on the main page, and I'm a little puzzled by it. This isn't a "policy or guideline" page. It's specifically indicated that this is informal. No "certification" is needed to post on any of the message boards--not AN/I, AIV, etc. If you have a problem and you want feedback, you post here for help. Just as on the other message boards, if the diffs don't point to a problem the volunteers here can handle, it's referred elsewhere. If it's obvious that the editor is trying to drag an edit war or personal conflict onto WQA, or has filed an alert to be malicious, it's closed. It's non-binding, it doesn't count as a "demerit' against anyone's Wiki record, and as such it's not "putting a noose around anyone's neck". We've also been able to solve numerous problems that have been ignored/aren't serious enough for AN/I or RfC. And I for one would rather have more informal, low-pressure forums for dispute resolution than less...the entire idea is to head things off before they need to go to RfC. Best, DanielEng (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this a serous suggestion? --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

He's put a dispute tag on the main page, so I'm treating it as such...but seeing as how the "dispute" is only coming from one user and he doesn't seem to have provided any valid reason for it, perhaps it should be pulled.DanielEng (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

But this page isn't a policy or guideline. I might as well tack that tag onto George H. W. Bush. I know you already said that, I'm just confused as to what on Earth this "dispute" is based on, besides an apparent dislike of RfC/Us and WQAs. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a process, though, and {{disputedtag}} can be used on here even if the letter doesn't say so. And yes, it's a serious suggestion. The less places for editors to attack others, the better. Will ^(talk) 09:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that tag is specifically for official policy and guideline pages. This isn't one, so it is inappropriate, and if you try to add it again, it will be considered disruption.

I also think you might want to take a moment and read what is on this page. WQA is specifically designed as intervention to keep editors from attacking others. Intervening in conflicts before they get out of hand, and require things like RfCs and blocks, is one way to keep Wiki more harmonious. As has already been explained to you, alerts posted here are not attacks. When editors aren't getting along on Wiki, which is inevitable given the wide range of personalities here, it's good to have a place to try to sort things out and have some informal dispute resolution. You're welcome to disagree, and if you don't like the WQA process, you're welcome to refrain from visiting here, but trying to dispute this page's existence because you personally don't like it won't work. Best, DanielEng (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

How else are we supposed to dispute process? Will ^(talk) 09:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, trying to have the page deleted won't work either, I'm afraid, and is going to be considered a bad faith, if not completely nonsensical nomination. If you have any valid reasons for disliking WQA, you're welcome to add them here and we can talk them over. But as has been explained to you, and is clear on the page, THIS IS NOT PART OF THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS, IT IS INFORMAL. In other words, you don't have to come here, more than any other page, if you don't like it or don't want to understand what it is. We work on consensus here, and WQA was created with the consensus of many administrators and regular users. We don't work on what one person decides he doesn't like. At this point I'm really going to suggest that unless you have any valid points or questions, you step away from the Reichstag and put down the Spiderman suit. Best, DanielEng (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This page is an indirect policy, as it is part of the WP:DR process, and is therefore not eligible for MfD. This should be discussed via WP:VP (policy), or hashed out here or the WP:DR talk page. Regardless, there is little chance this would result in deletion as the precedence is to tag as historical. Regards. --12 Noon ^2¢ 00:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this info--I didn't realize WP:DR even existed. Learn something new here every day. Thanks!DanielEng (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Each page is designated policy in its own right. The WQA is not a subpage of WP:DR, is it? I don't think so. As far as I can tell, only "direct" policy pages (to adopt your terminology) are eligible to be "challenged" in this fashion. If Sceptre wanted to challenge the WQA with that template, he'd have to smack it on the relevant policy page (WP:DR perhaps). This isn't really a policy page, even if it is conjured up by an over-arching policy page. It's an alertboard. --Cheeser1 (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept the idea that policies regarding WQA and its practices can be challenged and should be subject to review. As a part of WP:DR (that page suggests WQA as a first step), I think it's important that it be treated with the same level of fairness as, say, the Mediation Cabal/Committee. But that said, how does one really push to change an informal process? WQA is so informal that there are few hard and fast rules about how it MUST be run, and many cases need their own approach anyway, that it's really hard to pin down exactly what we really CAN change without just getting rid of it entirely.

I maintain that we've done more good than harm here. Some people get outed, sure, and some don't get what they want, but people tend to forget the whole "We can't and won't block people here" part - an admin may do that separately if he/she sees that it's warranted, but in those cases the only involvement of WQA would be to bring that to the admin's attention.

I have noticed more and more cases here getting really heated and our staffers failing to resolve matters more frequently lately - I'm concerned about that. But I don't think it's gotten to the point yet where the process needs a major overhaul - I noticed people on AN/I were saying that WP:CIVIL is broken, and that is an official policy. If something like that needs work, then disputing WQA is unlikely to help matters much. :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Lately, and one of the reasons why I haven't been as active here, is that there have been a high number of repeat filings from the same group of users. If it's not about fringe theories, it's about the one group of users promoting their agenda. And it's always the same editor that's in dispute. I can't count on my hand the number of times I've seen SA's name on here, or Guido's, or OrangeMarlin's. Some people seem to think that WQA is really a Nanny Board, that our sole duty is to give a few spankings on the rear and let them go off scot-free, again and again.

It's much more than that; it's a first step of the dispute resolution process. Not the Nanny Board. Or the catch-all board.

Some of the cases haven't been resolved for that reason. They are either too complicated to handle here, especially since many non-admins "staff" it, or they well exceed the bounds of WQA. If Will does want to remove WQA, an MFD isn't the way to go, IMO. Another noticeboard (I can't remember the name) was depreciated and essentially merged with another noticeboard -- that would be the route to go, if you want to pursue that route -- but it would involve rather lengthy discussions. seicer | talk | contribs 06:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Some people unfortunately seem to think that they should be running to WQA with every small complaint instead of trying to work through. They also seem to be trying to drag WQA into content disputes and other areas for which we're really not appropriate, and abusing it as a tool to try to retaliate against users who have made them angry. I'm not quite sure what is to be done about that, other than firmly closing such alerts when they come up to try to deter people from making frivolous and inappropriate reports.DanielEng (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

wikipedantry

A small matter, but a frequently repeated error.

• Incivility - noun
• Uncivil - adjective

There is no such [current] word as 'incivil'. cygnis insignis 04:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC) [insert] and strike 06:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's in Cymbeline:

Cymbeline. He was a Prince.

Guiderius. A most inciuill one. The wrongs he did mee /Were nothing Prince-like. (5.5.292) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Not forgetting 1683 D. A. Art Converse 117 They are rather not civil than positively incivil. 1707 Reflex. upon Ridicule 189 He is Proud, Haughty, Incivil. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My goodness! I just wanted to make a bombastic and absolute statement, then stand back with my hands on my hips. Now I am beset by gentle and learned wikipedians, I believe I will make a complaint about this civility. cygnis insignis 06:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I hearby ban the use of the word incivil, civil and uncivil at WQA. Com'on, we have a thesaurus. Let's use it! seicer | talk | contribs 17:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Discussions are to be archived after 14d if there is no activity. But the pileup is just becoming immense, especially since WQA has become substantially more active in recent months, and I'm not for sure if the bot is functioning properly. Anyone oppose to having the archive do its rounds every 7d? seicer | talk | contribs 19:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. And this is a dumb question and I'm probably not seeing a link that's right in front of me, but where are the 2008 archives going? I notice that the archive file box only has 2005-2007.DanielEng (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea, but I just started Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/Archive/2008. Let me do some digging. seicer | talk | contribs 02:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I see now. I'll set up an archive box similar to ANI/AE/etc. seicer | talk | contribs 02:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Bogdangiusca Care to explain your comments?

DanielEng comments" "I work here, I answer alerts. If you do not wish for comments from the WQA staff, you're more than welcome, and in fact, invited, to take your complaints elsewhere. I notice that no other editor has stepped in to justify your complaint, in spite of the fact that other alerts are being answered. If you're going to work on Wiki, you're going to have to learn that disagreements do not constitute impartiality and incivility. At this point, you're exhausting the patience of the community and being disruptive. Please do not abuse WQA with complaints like this again. DanielEng (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)"

I refer to the Wikipedia definition of "trolling" - "Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia. Trolling is deliberate violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces. It necessarily involves a value judgment made by one user about the value of another's contribution. (Because of this it is considered not to be any more useful than the judgment 'I don't agree with you' by many users, who prefer to focus on behaviors instead of on presumed intent.)" (Examples of me doing so would be great)

Am I "far more interested in how others react to their edits than in the usual concerns of Wikipedians: accuracy, veracity, comprehensiveness, and overall quality."?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Closed" does not mean "please repeat your complaint on the talk page." If you look at the diff in question, it's not even saying "you are a troll" it's saying "I said ___ about trolls earlier" basically. What do you expect? You were being disruptive, and you weren't even directly called a troll. Abusing this process and persistently lashing out at people here who respond and tell you to chill and try to behave in ways that aren't construed as trolling - that's not going to help you. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I really must be stupid!

One editor opens the alert...

...another closes after stepping in to offer support to the user I consider being uncivil.

....and the second editor then pronounces the whole thing a non event!

Now a third is saying I am not to question the decision of the second, although on the second editor's user page it says to ask questions here.

The third editor, you, then misquotes the text posted by User:Bogdangiusca which says "I ignored the discussion because I felt you were just trying to disrupt Wikipedia and I said that sterile discussions with a troll are useless."

Now, when I ask for advice on how I was a troll as defined by Wikipedia, I am told this was never said, and that I am apparehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist

My watchlistntly not allowed to question decisions on alert closure, or definitions of trolls, or ask how I was disruptive, in fact I can be told almost anything, but I am not allowed to know on what basis, unless I "take it elsewhere".

However, my problem was that unwarranted name-calling is uncivil(is it ever warranted?), and civility is dealt with by Wikiquette alerts!

Well, whatever. Like water off ducks back. If Bogdan can only offer abuse rather then participate in a civil discussion with well thought out arguments and some facts, then so be it.

I think you are correct. I will not use Wikiquette alerts again if this is the standard of "hearing" I can expect --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hearing? This isn't court, and you don't need to (or get to) drag out your argumentation until the judges/jury are convinced that you've been wronged. Name calling could be warranted, say, if you were being disruptive and someone said so. Seems somewhat applicable. Good question. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, "getting a hearing" is a more acceptable expression then "getting a reading"!!!

However, since I can't expect DanielEng to read what is written either, what should I try, telepathy?

I know its not a court. Only because I don't see any kangaroos.

But, hey, anyone can say just about anything, right? I can say that DanielEng was disruptive because I don't agree with her decision. After all, there is no definition for that, right? I can call you a troll because I don't know what the heck that means anymore (and I've been dealing with them since 1996!).

In any case. I have removed a link to Wikiquettes from my user page after only a week. I'll put it down to bad advice. Its a useless place to address issues of etiquette since people in position to do so are not particularly clear on manners, procedure and English. I suppose you are going to report me for being uncivil now? Be my guest. The likes of Bogdan are just praying for me to be blocked. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, they aren't "her" decisions. I'm male. You have a choice here: You can calm down, stop feeling persecuted and take a long, hard look at the way you've been interacting with editors all across Wiki. Or you can keep lashing out, abusing process, misreading policy and trying to bend it to your needs, and ignoring what is said to you. If you continue down the latter path, you will probably end up blocked eventually, and the only one responsible for it will be you. Your decision, but there's nothing else to say about it here. DanielEng (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I need to take a long hard look? I did lash out - once. I abused process? I misread policy? I tried to bend it to my needs? Ignoring what you said? What did you say? Never mind, you don't have to answer that. I don't care. I have read enough.

I'm sure you are familiar with GIGO? If you truly care about Wikipedia, you will consider that someone is at the beginning of that process. Maybe then you will consider my behavior from a different POV. I deal with information for a living. When I get a word wrong, it may cost millions to my employer and its clients. It is only because some editors in Wilkipedia do not actually appreciate the effect their contributions can have on lives of others, or are able to express them in a value statement that they can make contributions in the Laissez-faire way that invites people like me to either laugh or cry. An encyclopaedia is supposed to be an authoritative reference source. This means every part of it is either true, or its false. So call me a troll why don't you ;O)

Special:Watchlist? Is that like in Big Brother?

Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As a note, I am in agreement with DanielEng's comments at WQA. Regarding the issue, it seems to be more of a content dispute, and from the diff provided, I see no accusation of trolling. Furthermore, with no other statements to at least validate or oppose the statement, it is really quite a moot point. seicer | talk | contribs 14:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

How to prevent gaming and improper use of WQA?

The proper WQA procedure, to prevent gaming the system and improper reports, is to investigate the behavior of all involved parties. However, this is not always done. What is the proper way to bring up the concern that WQA is being gamed or otherwise used improperly? --Ronz (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide some examples of instances of "gaming the system and improper reports"? It would help focus the discussion. Dlabtot (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there are a few in the recent MfD. --Ronz (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, if you can't provide several examples, could you please provide at least one? Are you talking about something that exists in reality? If so, please provide a WP:DIFF. Dlabtot (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"I think there are a few in the MfD" --Ronz (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't we be following up with the examples listed in the MfD? --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to move the discussion away from vague complaints to concrete examples of where the noticeboard has had a problem and how we can use those examples to improve it. Absent some tether to reality, in the form of some examples of gaming and improper use of WQA, so that we can explore whether your point is valid, it's tempting to dismiss this complaint as sour grapes. So I respectfully repeat my request for you to provide an example that illustrates your argument. Continually pointing to another, closed, discussion, in which I participated, is in no way enlightening. Dlabtot (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Then give it a rest. I think that the concerns there, and the examples, should be addressed. --Ronz (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I can think of many times when the complaint lacked merit, but was made in good faith. Let's not forget that that's where we start off. The times I've seen obvious forumshopping/gaming/etc, it's been pointed out. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What I'm not seeing very consistently are editors responding by looking into the context and behaviors of all parties. If we cannot do this consistently, then this forum should probably be deleted. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's get off that horse. We're not going to MfD the WQA, okay? If you have constructive criticism or examples to cite (and please don't just cite the WQAs against you), fine, but stop with the calls for deletion. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. And I disagree with the comment that editors are not "looking into the context and behavior of all parties." I've seen the opposite here. When people come in and file alerts inappropriately, editors do look through the diffs, examine the entire picture to see what is happening and shut them down. The editors who respond to Alerts here seem to be pretty impervious to WP:LAWYER and the numerous requests of "so-and-so called reverted me, they're rude, ban then NOW!" If anything needs to happen here, I think it's to try to find a way to keep people from abusing the system so much. DanielEng (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What type of abuse of the system are you talking about? --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Seicer has mentioned some examples below. We've seen a number of cases where people have filed WQA alerts for matters that are clearly out of our jurisdiction (ie, the recent one against Science Apologist where the editor wanted SA banned from all articles on a particular subject), or have filed alerts simply in an attempt to get someone to side with them on a content matter. We've also seen cases where alerts have been filed to retaliate against other editors who previously filed alerts. In every single case where an Alert has been filed wrongly or abusively, it's been picked up, questioned and closed, even when the editor tries to get it to continue (see the discussion thread a few topics up, where an editor ranted and raved because his WQA was dismissed, for instance). All of this happens at other message boards too. AN/I, RPP and AIV in particular get a lot of nonsense, of course.DanielEng (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Basically, I think you're saying that WQA catches the problems, and that these type of problems are not specific to just WQA. Mostly, I agree. --Ronz (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The horse isn't dead. We're supposed to be discussing it here.

How about I cite the WQAs against you? Talk about gaming WQA!

"What I'm not seeing very consistently are editors responding by looking into the context and behaviors of all parties." --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The WQAs against me were dismissed as patent retaliation/abuse of the WQA. Please find a situation where people don't consider the whole picture, because its seems to me like more often than not, we take flack for considering the whole picture. And the horse is dead - calling for deletion is going to do nothing but make this discussion tendentious and unproductive. We're past that turn, and we didn't take it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to mention the d-word. Can we get to the topic at hand? --Ronz (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

We're all waiting for you to substantiate this "nobody looks at the big picture" claim. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"However, this is not always done" is not "nobody looks at the big picture". --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What I'd like to see here more consistently:

1. Identifying when editors have been in similar disputes.
2. Identifying when editors have been blocked for incivility, especially when it's related to a current dispute.
3. Identifying when editors have already been advised on a situation.
4. Identifying when editors are not making clear claims about civility issues.

--Ronz (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Editors are often outed if they have been in similar disputes (see OrangeMarlin, ScienceApologist, etc.). I can check the block logs of all parties involved to see if there have been prior blocks that could be of use to the discussion, or if they have been previously advised of such. As for the last bullet, if an editor is not clear about a civility issue, we usually respond with the statement, "Please provide additional diffs." seicer | talk | contribs 18:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Seicer. All of that is basically standard practice. Instead of continuing to muse on what you'd like to see here, I'll ask again if you can find concrete examples of such things happening. I'm of a mind that in general, we actually do a good job of gathering an adequate amount of context before responding to any notice posted here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that we agree. I think we need to expand the list and become better at following it. --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't agree - you seem to think it's an issue whereby respondents (e.g. me) do not consider the whole picture. You are saying that this is something that must change, as if this is the issue that spurred the MfD-turned-discussion. If it's such a big deal, give us some examples! I'm sorry, but of all things you're expecting us WQA respondents to spend time researching past incidents, pagehistories, etc (which we do), but you aren't taking the time to do the same. You seem to be of the opinion that this does not happen regularly (or not enough, or not all the time, whatever it is your concerns are). If so, why don't you humor us WQA respondents and give us some examples, because if you agreed with me, you wouldn't have a problem with how such "big picture" issues are handled. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think one of the issues that's paramount here is that literally anyone can come and give input regarding civility. There is no structure to this, or a list of "WQA mediators." We could have more structure if we appointed a few mediators to WQA that could provide some formality to the process, which I wouldn't mind proposing if it comes to that. What I've seen is that some editors, who may hold a grudge against one particular set of users, will file frivolous WQA requests just in spite or to be pointy, and then will try to mediate the discussion from a biased viewpoint, or try to mediate other discussions in such a manner. It doesn't work that way. seicer | talk | contribs 20:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What I'd like to see is an expansion of the current instructions we already have, to give submitting editors a better understanding of what to expect, and reviewing editors better guidance on what should be done. --Ronz (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you think needs to be added? Dlabtot (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Besides something referring to what I've already listed? --Ronz (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Responding to your comment that what you'd like to see is an expansion of the current instructions we already have, I ask you, in what ways, specifically, would you like to see the current instructions expanded? What words, phrases, sentences or paragraphs, should be added to the current instructions? Dlabtot (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions. I'm concerned that what instructions we have already are being overlooked. For example, shouldn't Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Anonymous_IP_addresses_99.235.43.93_and__24.36.9.241_continuing_to_make_personal_attacks be closed since it has been opened in two other places? Does it belong here at all since he's asking for action from an admin? --Ronz (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any suggestions, because I think the current instructions are fine. If you think the instructions are good, but that a lot of editors fail to follow them, I agree. If you wish to change the instructions, you'll have to make the suggestions yourself, rather than wait for suggestions from people who don't agree with you. If you think there is a thread on WP:WQA, that needs closing, why don't you go ahead and close it? Dlabtot (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Ronz, this makes no sense whatsoever. The response to this was obvious, clear cut, and came within like an hour of posting. How is this one of the issues that plagues the WQA? How does this demonstrate that the WQA needs fixin' as explained in the MfD? This issue was handled. There's no problem here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Examples from MfD

• Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive41#Complaint_against_ScienceApologist
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive33#Michael_Hardy

--Ronz (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And what is it about these examples that you wish to call to our attention? Dlabtot (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The case with Hardy was resolved - he apologized, explained himself, and the context was analyzed in great depth (AfDs, issues of mathematics on Wikipedia, etc). The SA case is well outside the bounds of the WQA, and had alot of discussion that wasn't productive or germane. Perhaps no respondent analyzed the entire context of the situation, but only by virtue of the fact that things that are in active arbitration, mediation, etc are not generally in-bounds. Neither of these examples involves a failure by respondents, on the whole, to examine the surrounding context (or at least acknowledge it and respond appropriately). --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What should be done when context is not being considered?

Trying to get the discussion back to my original question: I'd like some suggestions on what to do. Specifically, "What is the proper way to bring up the concern that WQA is being gamed or otherwise used improperly?" I'm sorry that so many editors here are on the defensive by my asking this, and how the discussion has progressed. I've listed four specific concerns that I've seen overlooked. Are editors simply unable to address my concerns without a specific example? --Ronz (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I endorse the question (in se); I proposed three additional specific concerns (below), and IMO rather than derailing the discussion we have basically cited each other as examples of unfettered bad behaviour. I also would like to know what to do, and I honestly hope some third party suggests something new. To be complete I should add that we also are apparently citing each other as examples of derailing discussion away from any consensus. I propose adhering to the list of concerns as indicators of bad debate; e.g., cite specifics, answer questions, etc. Pete St.John (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Your question lacks a valid premise. Dlabtot (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

NB Dlabdot's above was near-simul with mine, not quite an EC. Pete St.John (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. It's like me asking you "How do we address your children's stupidity?" If your children are not stupid, or if we are already addressing it, my question is nonsense. You want to know how to deal with bad WQAs? Look at the archives. There are hundreds of WQAs that have been closed due to forumshopping, lack of merit, larger contextual issues, etc. All of the issues you guys are talking about (e.g. answer questions directly) already exist at WP:CIVIL, which people will (or should) have read by the time they get here. Ronz, nobody can answer your concerns if they aren't valid ones. If you can't explain to us what's going on (you can't, empirically we know this now, stop trying), you'll have to cite examples. If no examples exist, then it's obviously not an issue. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL doesn't seem effective regarding sustained sequences of individually civil behaviours which are in the aggregate as infuriating as Chinese water torture; but to give a specific example (of a prolonged sequence) is awkward. I'd start with pretty much the entire contents of my Talk page; one could grep for "Ronz". Particularly there is this current WQA Pete St.John (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That was explained pretty thoroughly already at the WQA. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Other issues

(adding to Ronz's list) How about:

1. Identify when editors refuse to provide specifics (see example "could you provide some instances..." above)
2. Identify when editors repeat themselves without adding to the understanding (see example "a few in MfD" above)
3. Identify when editors refuse to answer pointed questions

Sorry to seem eristic but there seems (to me) to be quite alot to gaming wiki. Pete St.John (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what these have to do with civility. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Pete's point (sorry if I misunderstand Pete) is that refusing to provide specifics, repeating yourself without adding to the understanding, and refusing to answer pointed questions, those three could be added to the criteria for when someone participating in a complaint here is gaming or otherwise being less-than-cooperative. I also think Pete may be hinting (if he isn't, I'll start the hinting) that you are possibly doing two or three of these things. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like some editors need to question if they're assuming good faith of others. --Ronz (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific? Do you mean to say that PeterStJohn and/or Cheeser1 (please state which, if any, of them, or who else) is wrongly accusing you of a specific kind of unconstructive behaviour? If not, please explain what else you mean. If that's what you mean, please clarify: Do you intend to say that their accusation can / can only / can most easily (please choose an option) be explained by the assumption that they are not assuming good faith? If that's not what you mean, please explain what you mean.

I think this long catalogue of questions is a good illustration of the problem with your contributions to this discussion: I am genuinely puzzled, as I have been before in my one previous interaction with you. In that other case what you said also did not seem to make any sense at all, but it was so vague that it seemed impossible to reply without reading your mind. When I made a good-faith effort at that, you accused me of assuming good faith.

Please make an effort to express yourself more clearly so that other editors can meaningfully reply to what you say. Giving very specific answers to my questions above might be a good way to start. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

First, yes, Cheeser1 accurately interprets my intent, thanks, and I should take responsibility for the "hinting" (which I meant to sufficiently direct to not merely insinuate; by citing searchable words). Second, to Ronz, I consider "AGF" to mean to treat edits with the initial assumption of good faith. I doubt Ronz's good faith on account of what I perceive as a persistent pattern over a long time, which I have some difficulty enunciating effectively, but which I characterise as eristic, unmannerly, and deleterious to consensus building. Finally, I think there is substantial documentation for Hans' persistent mannerliness, and it would seem to me that Ronz's only objection ("You understand Peter? Great! Now both of you stop harassing me" at Hans' s Talk is that he has spoken up for me. Even jerks deserve competent representation (in the legal allegory, which wiki is not). Pete St.John (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And before you [Ronz] invoke WP:NPA and WP:AGF, keep in mind WP:SPADE. We're struggling to draw information out of you, and getting virtually nothing, despite the fact that this is allegedly a serious issue with how this alertboard functions. If you're not being forthcoming, don't get mad at us and throw WP:AGF in our faces when we ask you to spit out a clear explanation of exactly what you're talking about. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If PeterStJohn can't assume good faith, I think this discussion is at an end. He's made his WP:POINT. Yes, everyone, keep in mind WP:SPADE. --Ronz (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me Ronz, I believe you completely misinterpreted my statement. Ronz, you are not giving people straight answers here, and are really talking us all in circles. Pete said so, and I told you not to cry AGF because all he's doing is saying so (that's WP:SPADE). Why are you citing WP:SPADE while accusing Pete of making a WP:POINT (which is about disruptive editing, by the way, and really has little bearing here, it's not a substitution for every time you use the phrase "make a point" you know). --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"Ronz, you are not giving people straight answers here, and are really talking us all in circles." Sorry you feel that way. I'm trying to keep the discussion on topic. My apologies that I'm not so interested in continuing tangential topics, especially ones started by editors that admit to being unable to assume good faith. --Ronz (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've created this AN/I regarding the aforementioned WQA. Pete St.John (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell, this has nothing to do with the above conversation. Pete, unless I'm missing something, this issue about reforming the WQA has nothing to do with your complaint against Ronz. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. I saw connections: that Ronz was (as per my WQA) exemplifying his own complaint here (as I interpreted it); and that the difficulty of addressing difuse misbehaviour can be construed as a weakness in WQA. But elsewhere is probably right anyway. Anyway I appreciate your patience; it's an annoyance to me that I'm consuming so much of other people's, on account of running low on my own. Pete St.John (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The archive navbox needs editing - where is it?

There are 41 archives now. I can't figure out how to get to the navbox to edit it. Is it bot-created maybe? --Ronz (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's bot-generated, managed by User:Miszabot. I left a message for the bot's owner (User:Misza13) to ask him/her to look into why the archive isn't showing up in the list. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, turns out the navbox is manually updated after all. See Template:Wikiquette alerts/Archive navbox - it should be fairly self-explanatory. I added an invisicomment to the main page to point users to it for future reference - Misza already took care of adding the new row. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks yet again! --Ronz (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for Wikiquette alerts/Beginning

Would it be helpful to suggest editors use the article and userlinks templates when appropriate?

* {{article|article name}}

* {{userlinks|username}}

--Ronz (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The WQA is an attempt to be less formal than, say, WP:AIV or WP:3RR. Asking users (especially when the WQA often catches complaints and issues from new and inexperienced users) to use templates and such would be a bit tough, whereas those of us who respond can easily find all of the links included in such templates - and sometimes we'll post the templates on our own. I see no reason to complicate the procedure for this informal process any more than it already is - people have a tough enough time providing DIFFs. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Article links and userlinks are very helpful to editors responding to postings. While there is no need to require them, it is not a matter of formality but of utility. — Athaenara ✉ 19:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Another suggestion re same section

Wikiquette alert volunteers
Regular	Occasional
Editors who volunteer regularly	Editors who volunteer occasionally
Volunteers who reply to a report are understood to be making themselves available for a reasonable amount of time. Whether a regular or occasional volunteer responds they will help in the same capacity, the designations are simply to assist editors in knowing how likely some volunteers are watching this page.

I realize identifying editors with this board might seem on its face to be adding bureaucracy and structure to an informal forum. However people new to Wikipedia may see someone replying to several threads as a jerk imposing their opinions* rather than an acknowledged good faith volunteer. (*People who are told something they don't want to hear can get a bit defensive. If they don't know any better will most likely disregard good advice. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the won't keep disregarding it if they understand an acknowledged volunteer is helping, but it will make the situation more clear that proof of an argument will be needed.) Anynobody 06:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Last year the Third opinion project got a Category:Third opinion Wikipedians, an idea which might work here as well; perhaps Category:Wikiquette volunteers. — Athaenara ✉ 19:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikiquette Alerts Volunteers ? Sounds like a good idea to me. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the Category:Wikiquette Alerts Volunteers idea as well :) Anynobody 04:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Archiving problem

For some reason the MiszaBot is not archiving the alerts page properly, and it's grown over 200K. I've posted at Misza's talkpage a couple days ago, but he seems to be inactive. I've also started an ANI thread.[1] If there's still no response soon, I recommend manually archiving the page. --Elonka 22:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done a partial manual archive. In the ANI thread, I left a note as well, but I think I see what happened. I've made a change to see if that fixes it, so lets see if MiszaBot archives during its next run. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it's probably the headers change, yes. Okay, let's see what the bot does on its next run. BTW, I also recommend tweaking the cutoff time lower, as I think 14 days is too long for such a busy page. I recommend tweaking it down to 7 days. --Elonka 23:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Putting this page on my watchlist

Has led me to sticking my nose in all over the place, any comments/criticism from people who've been doing this longer (not that I intend to 'do this', I'm just nosey) Restepc (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who minded would've probably left you a message on your user talk page. Anynobody 04:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with misuse of WQA

Copied this from a thread on the project page:

Yes, well put. This is another example of how this page is consistently misused by editors seeking to game the system instead of genuine breaches of civility. WQA seriously needs a rethink to stop this kind of nonsense. Eusebeus (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, probably close to 50% of the reports here are bogus reports from people who are just pissed off and trying to get revenge. I think that right now, there is low enough traffic on this page that we can just deal with it case by case.

The bigger problem is at WP:ANI. It is freaking swamped. In fact, I think if we could divert more of the bogus ANI reports here, I think that would be a positive thing.

If you have ideas on how to deal with misuse of WQA and ANI, I am all ears. One thing I don't want to do is penalize people for bogus reports, unless they do so consistently. I am concerned it would have a chilling effect...

I'm open to any ideas though! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been an ongoing problem, but as has been mentioned in the past, it's not a problem that is restricted to WQA. Users who seek to game the system do so on all of the noticeboards, or forum shop until they find one they believe to be sympathetic.

I'd say that the best way to deal with it is what has been done before: add a "not a WQA issue" tag to the alert, close it and archive it immediately. It tends to make the gaming editors angry (see the archive of this talk page for examples) but it also lets them know that WQA will not be that sympathetic forum. DanielEng (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree that editors trying to game the system will probably abuse it whatever controls are put in place, but it's probably a good idea to require some sort of evidence (i.e. diffs) as part of the post. Some sort of template wouldn't be a bad idea, since people with legitimate complaints might also be confused about exactly what to say. Explicit affirmations of what other forums have been tried already might not be a bad idea. Somedumbyankee (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been here in a few months, but we generally do refuse to look at complaints unless there are diffs, and we ask for them in the instructions. Has that changed?DanielEng (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

We need to take a harder line against bogus complaints using clear and unambiguous language. I think our assumptions of good faith too often become general pusillanimity in the face of what are, in truth, totally garbage claims. I am going to disagree with Daniel, however, because of an important principle that I believe might be of some use here and which is perhaps too often overlooked: Initiating a groundless or retaliatory civility complaint is itself a gross breach of civility.

This is an informal process so there is hardly a mechanism for meting out penalties, but we need to stop being gamed by editors who are misusing this board. Warning templates, strongly-worded monition and less tolerance for disruption are a possible first remedial step. Eusebeus (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

While I absolutely agree with your bolded comment, I remain very concerned about a chilling effect. If users see people getting stern warnings and/or blocked for making a report on WQA, it creates a perception of "shoot the messenger" (of course, we also have the opposite perception of "he who complains first wins", which is equally false, but people will look for any reason to bitch). I dunno, it's a very tough call. ---Jaysweet (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the same possibility for a chilling effect. Bogus complaints are almost always apparent prima facie and as this mechanism is informal, blocks are not a realistic outcome. Currently, the only downside for posting a bogus complaint is that it helps establish a record of disruptive editing which can be subsequently marshaled via RFC or ANI. Preferably, editors filing such requests will rethink their actions and make amends. Either way, we can help formalise that by making it clearer when such reports are filed that gaming the system is unacceptable and will open editors to possible further sanction as part of their record of contribution. A warning template along the lines of my bolded principle above might help. Eusebeus (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I agree. Editors who repeatedly file bogus complaints here are usually up to mischief elsewhere too, and end up getting blocked for that. And as mentioned, while blocks generally do not occur as a result of WQA postings, they do create a tangible record of disruptive behavior that can serve as grounds for a block, if one is merited. I absolutely agree that filing a bogus report is a breach of civility, but this is an informal forum. We can't block people here. Refusing to give the gamers an audience for their games is probably the best we can, and should, do. DanielEng (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• The current system is reasonably fine, for now. WQA is intended as an early part of dispute resolution - it is not a gross breach of incivility if you genuinely are concerned about something someone else has said. If you have a legit concern, we'll tell you. If not, we'll tell you that too. When discussions get heated, involved users have trouble figuring out the difference, or can be mistaken too. When users repeatedly file baseless WQAs, over and over and over - then controlling it can be a problem, but we'll tell you if you're doing that too. Overall, a bit of common-sense should be enough and I think we're not doing a bad job so far. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Considering the tenor of the deletion debates above for this page, I find it hard to agree with your assessment that WQA is working reasonably well. Moreover, willfully filing a baseless complaint is not the same as a genuine filing that is itself simply misplaced. The former is indeed a gross breach of civility the latter is certainly not - on that we are in complete agreement. But when so many of the complaints filed to this page are simply edit-warring or sniping by other means, this represents a breach of WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. That represents a very serious problem; being supine about it is not, in my view, a responsible position. Editors need to make it clearer (as Jay has done today) that such practice is intolerable and unacceptable. Eusebeus (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw this deletion discussions for the first time earlier today. I was frankly a little surprised -- and I was wondering if the editors in question would have the same opinion of WQA's effectiveness today. I think what we do here is pretty helpful. I would say about half the time we are able to at least get the editors in question to stand down, even if they still hate each other :D A 50% success rate is only okay, but if we prevent 50% of these reports from escalating to ANI, I think that is a good thing.

I saw a lot of the editors complaining about reports here languishing unanswered, but I think lately we've been responding to most reports within a day. I think that is pretty good, all things considered.

Anyway, so the suggestion was made to have templatized warnings about bogus WQA (and other noticeboard) reports. I think I am okayt with that, as long as the level 1 and level 2 warnings are worded very politely, with a maximum of AGF. I remain concerned about a chilling effect, because I disagree that bogus reports are always self-evident. Even with the Blackeagles report, which is the most bullshit transparently-retaliatory report I've seen in awhile, a new user reading that thread might wonder why we are picking on the guy who reported the problem. They might think, "Hey, maybe SlamDiego is some evil mastermind, and all these guys here are in cahoots with him!" I want to avoid biting people even for retaliatory reports, unless it becomes a pattern.

I might take a stab at drafting some templates later today. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are some draft templates. Each one is listed both with and without the parameter:

Level 1 without parameter

Greetings. Although we encourage everyone to seek dispute resolution when necessary, a recent report you made did not appear to require outside intervention. You may consider contacting involved editors on their User Talk pages in an attempt to work out your differences. Thank you. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Level 1 with parameter

Greetings. Although we encourage everyone to seek dispute resolution when necessary, a recent report you made to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts did not appear to require outside intervention. You may consider contacting involved editors on their User Talk pages in an attempt to work out your differences. Thank you. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Level 2 without parameter

Greetings. Although we encourage everyone to seek dispute resolution when necessary, a recent report you made appeared to have been somewhat premature. Every time you report someone to a noticeboard, it takes time away from other editors and administrators in order to examine the report, and the person about whom you made the report may take offense if they feel the report was unnecessary. Please try to work out your differences by contacting the user directly before making a report. Thank you. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Level 2 with parameter

Greetings. Although we encourage everyone to seek dispute resolution when necessary, a recent report you made to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts appeared to have been somewhat premature. Every time you report someone to a noticeboard, it takes time away from other editors and administrators in order to examine the report, and the person about whom you made the report may take offense if they feel the report was unnecessary. Please try to work out your differences by contacting the user directly before making a report. Thank you. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Level 3 without parameter

Please refrain from making frivolous or bad faith reports to noticeboards. This may be construed as an attempt at gaming the system, which is prohibited, and is also a highly uncivil action. If you continues to make frivolous reports, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Level 3 with parameter

Please refrain from making frivolous or bad faith reports to noticeboards, as you did at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. This may be construed as an attempt at gaming the system, which is prohibited, and is also a highly uncivil action. If you continues to make frivolous reports, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Level 4 without parameter

This is the last warning you will receive for your inappropriate noticeboard reports. If you make another frivolous or malicious report, you will be blocked from editing. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Level 4 with parameter

This is the last warning you will receive for your inappropriate noticeboard reports, such as the one you made to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. If you make another frivolous or malicious report, you will be blocked from editing. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm not fond of the idea of templates being made available to all, let alone us - it's bad enough normal templates are used without basis in many cases. Will discuss it with you privately first, given that we're both the ones primarily who've dealt with WQAs in the past few months or so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Btw, can someone cite a few incidents that would've warranted these, had we been using them? (maybe they are being used?) Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is using them. As I mentioned, I was never convinced they were a good idea, and I mostly created them to get practice on creating parameterized templates :D Nobody else seems to think they are a good idea either.

I think I could cite a few example of where these could be used, but I am not sure I can cite any examples where it would be a significant improvement over a custom note. I think this idea is just falling by the wayside (as it probably should) --Jaysweet (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol, you thinking of making any other templates? Btw, it's weird that the bot hasn't archived any of this - it's only been 20 days old between my last reply and now. :S Oh well...I'll archive it manually later then :D Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Meta-dispute?

Just as a general comment about some recent conversations... man, it would be really sad if we had to go to Dispute Resolution because of a disagreement on how to handle Dispute Resolution :D --Jaysweet (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite! I don't think it could come to that usually, although, I wouldn't be surprised if I found a case on it one day. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.... El_C 19:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Start here. :) seicer | talk | contribs 19:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Civility in replying to WQA requests

Is there a way to enforce civility when replying to WQA requests? I made a request recently and as inappropriate as it was I don't feel being told I deserved to be spoken to that way is an appropriate response. I understand that there are editors that come here trying to game the system, the people that volunteer here need to understand there are editors that come here honestly feeling they have been slighted. To belittle a persons feelings with callus remarks of "...[you] are equally at fault" doesn't seem to be very helpful. The wording in the templates above appears to me to be quite genial and I would support the use of those templates if only to standardize the language in them. They also serve as a gentle reminder of the proper process (which I failed to follow in my rancor) which would be a help as well. Any thoughts from others? Padillah (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Padillah, I think this has been fully covered in both the WQA and related ANI. You want a 3rd party view, you're going to get a wide range of views. If an editor who was involved in the dispute had been "uncivil", that might have been different. BMW(drive) 22:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Complainants should provide Diff showing where they advised the other party

Ok, so my subject heading shows it all. I think they should show where they did advise, or else if WE advise the other party, we should also provide the diff. My 2cents. BMW(drive) 22:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stress alerts

Topic for discussion. Should Wikipedia:Stress alerts redirect here? --neon white talk 12:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Propse a template for alerting the subject of an alert

It seems that nearly every alert fails to notify the subject of the alert. I think a template notification might help make this easier. Something like this User:Neon_white/uw-alert --neon white talk 17:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I created this one ages ago: User:Bwilkins/didnotnotify. You would {{subst:User:Bwilkins/didnotnotify|WQA}} for WQA ones, or else you get the generic DR statement. ►BMW◄ 16:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"accusations of incivility are not civil"?????

I don't know how long User:Neon white has been commenting on this talk page, but I think we have a problem on our hands. In his comments to the thread that I opened (Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Matt57 (talk · contribs)) he states that "accusations of incivility are not civil". A Wikiquette alert is ipso facto a claim that their is an incivility problem. So if every Wikiquette alert is met with the refrain that an accusations of incivility are not civil, we might have to just shut down this page. His other comments were generally irrelevant. They focused on everything else besides for the problem - that a user repeatedly insulting other editors that they should "should spend their time in a more useful way". The underlying incivility has thankfully resolved itself prior to Neon White's edits and his misanalysis of the situation is not something I would bring to this talk page. But there is a fundamental problem here if we have editors telling those who feel wronged and insulted that their incivility complaints are uncivil. Thank you, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you brought up these concerns to Neon white at all to see if you can get clarification on what he meant by that statement? With the way it is worded, I almost feel like he intended to say something else but it came out awkwardly. either way (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Its not really that how he responded to my specific case and I don't really care what he meant in my specific case. My issue is not something to make a big deal about. I am worried about a greater problem in the general level of competence of the volunteers at this page. People come here with real problems and we can't have some random editor who responds with wrong or ambiguous solutions. Additionally, a perusal of Neon White's talk page reveals that he has himself has been in some contentions situations, including some editors starting alerts on him.

It looks like any Tom, Dick, or Harry, can come to this page and pronounce himself arbitrator over some real sensitive real issues. Is there even a restriction on editors that were previously blocked for incivility? If being an arbitrator on this page is not restricted to admins (and I think it should) it should at least be restricted to those that are established to be in good standing in the WP community. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

either way is correct and I apologize for that line and any offence caused, it came out a bit garbled, what i was trying to say was that 'vandalism' is assuming a deliberate attempt to disrupt wikipedia, try not to accuse of editors of vandalism over what may be good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia, editors may consider it a personal attack. --neon white talk 05:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Remove Sections from this Page after 4, 9 or 24 Hours?

MiszaBot is currently installed on this page and configured to remove, in their entirety, any sections that have not received a comment in the last 30 days. What do you think of a proposal to set it to 4 hours or 9 hours or 24 hours, so entire sections will be removed from this page if there are no additional contributions within those time frames? Will any problems be created if the time frame is shortened? Is 4, 9 or 24 hours long enough to determine that a topic is stale or that an unresolved dispute is no longer relevant. Or will the project be better served by waiting 30 days for removal to give the Wikipedia Community that might not be able to contribute in a shorter time frame a chance to contribute to the discussion. Also, in the even that there are unresolved disputes regarding policy or content of the project page, should a note be made on this page that such an unresolved dispute exists and can be found in the archive? Doright (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

MiszaBot is also currently installed on the project page. What do you think of a proposal to set it to 4 hours or 9 hours or 24 hours, so entire sections will be removed from this page if there are no additional contributions within those time frames? Doright (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's fine the way it is. Gerardw (talk) 08:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Gerardw, will it be fine if it is set to "4 hours or 9 hours or 24 hours, so entire sections will be removed if there are no additional contributions within those time frames?" And, if it will not be fine, why no?Doright (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be fine. Not all editors are online (on WP) 24/7 to respond in such short time period thus the change would make it "unpleasant" to those. As Gerardw said, it's fine as is.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think editors should read the post on the project page that Doright has made. His point is that a conflict he complained about here arose frome someone doing just that to another talk page. He proposed changing the time here to demonstrate why he objected to it on that talk page. Unfortunately, discussion of changing the time is not a civility issue and so is unlikely to get much feedback from this forum. (And please note, his point is not a WP:POINT as he has done nothing to disrupt Wikipedia. It would be a WP:POINT if he actually changed the settings, but discussing it here is not disruptive, just making his point.) The Seeker 4 Talk 20:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you point out the talk page you're referring to? Thanks. BTW, nobody said anything about him/her being disruptive or even anything close to it.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I know no one accused him of disruption, but when someone says "he is making a point" there is a tendancy on Wikipedia for editors to start screaming WP:POINT, which is why I wrote that to head off any such accusations and to remove the impression that I was making such an accusation. The Seeker 4 Talk 22:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The request for help on the civility and related issues is an attempt to get help in encouraging the editor to engage in talk instead of merely ignoring, reverting, edit waring and personal attacks. So, then I have the situation where not only was Hapsala not engaging in the talk section created to address the problem on the article talk page, starting to edit war, manually terminating ongoing discussion pages, moving towards edit warring, declines to talk about it on his user talk page and dismisses my post as [WP:Nonsense], accusses me of (1) being a sockpuppet (2) trolling. Any help with civility or anything other way of addressing the problem will be both appreciated and beneficial to the project. Theseeker, you are correct that my primary concern is the disruption caused to the project by the removal of content on the talk page Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict and especially content that documents the existence of unresolved disputes regarding policy and guideline and WP normative practices violations on the article page itself. Best Regards, Doright (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Still, I had a simple question and what I get is that the answer is somewhere at the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict talk-page? I (and I expect others too) won't go thru this fast moving page to find out where the "problem" started, is or might be if there is one related and subject to this talk page here. And Doright, concerns about civility and personal attacks belong on the main page here, not the talk page. You can file a report if you didn't do so already.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, by "the post on the project page" I meant this project page, meaning he already filed a complaint at WQA, where the dispute I am refering to is described. Basically, an editor changed the bot to archive threads after a few hours, rather than days. Details can be found on the main page of this project, under the section on User:Hapsala. The Seeker 4 Talk 02:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks an admin took care of it, so the matter is resolved. Doright (talk) 07:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

SineBot

I don't think the WQA page is covered by User:SineBot. Would anyone object if I add the necessary tag to have it do so? Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea, go ahead. The Seeker 4 Talk 14:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There was already a tag on the page, but it wasn't listed at [2]. I move the tag a bit to see if that will work. Gerardw (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Search Box

I was bold, and I have added a feature that allows you to search WQA and its archives from the top of the WQA page. I hope you like. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I like that BMW - what was the code you used and where did you put it to get that? I wouldn't mind adding something like that to search talk pages. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 08:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I edited the transcluded header for the page WP:Wikiquette alerts/Beginning ...you can find the code there (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Notify editors who are the subject of a WQA

This still isn't being done on a regular enough basis for my liking. I think it's important that the accused gets to respond. What can be done? --neon white talk 07:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Late answer, but I've just been checking each time, and notifying them myself. I'm going to be bold, and add some bold to the instruction page right now, maybe that will help. Also, if anyone around here knows how to do it, what about an edit notice when creating a new section that would remind users to inform the other party? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Praise to Beeblebrox for any constructive initiatives in this. Debresser (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I use this handy-dandy template: {{subst:User:Bwilkins/didnotnotify|WQA}} ~~~~ (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

blanking of reports initiated in bad faith

There is a recurring problem here of discussions being initiated by sockpuppets. In the spirit of WP:DENY and WP:RBI, I think that instead of closing such threads, we should just blank them out entirely. Thoughts, anyone? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I like having them as evidence of disruption. I also like the Plaxico effect. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that term. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be some kind of sports metaphor, something to do with Plaxico Burress. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's some additional info: User:MuZemike/Plaxico Furthering the wikipedia metaphor at least, Burress was released by the New York Giants this past spring, and faces the possibility of a lengthy "block" by the NFL - or potentially an "indefinite" block, if no one wants to hire him anyway. Unlike the typical "Plaxico" here, he had some good career moments, most notably catching the championship-winning pass for the Giants in Super Bowl XLII. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Plaxico Burress basically ended his promising NFL career by an extra-ordinary amount of self-inflicted stupidity. It's become a catchphrase around here for socks and trolls that loudly announce, with ANI threads or obvious posts on inappropriate pages, they're not ony here to disrupt, but it's not their first time. Dayewalker (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes we keep them; if it's clear that they're sockpuppets (as in a CU has basically confirmed it) very early on, the reports are blanked/removed. It's a case-by-case thing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

In extremely clearcut cases, removal makes perfect sense. Keep in mind, though, that RBI doesn't work unless you can be sure of the 'B'. Without that, more heat can be generated through repeated blankings than by a simple, under-the-radar, ignore-for-two-days-and-then-close-as-resolved approach. Remember that quiet, slow reverting is the recommended response to possible trolling.

One also wants to avoid false positives, of course. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed an entry today that not only had the original IP poster removed SineBot's addition of an automatic sig, they then changed it to say "I'm submitting this anonymously" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous submissions

See BWilkins note above about removing a request from a user who wished to remain anonymous. The risk of socks aside, I am not aware of any rule that states that only logged in users can post here. If there is such a rule, it should say it in the header to the project page.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing that says they have to be logged in. Indeed, we often deal with IP-address based issues. As per the instructions, the WQA process is intended to facilitate discussion between parties, and the party that files a WQA alert is required to advise the other party. If the issue is so bad that they cannot alert the other party, then it has escalated beyond WQA's mandate. The user not only didn't sign the post, but removed SineBot's automatic signing of the entry. If the party is not here to attempt to discuss, then this is not their correct forum, and although I can assume as much good faith as I want, they obviously were not here to discuss and mediate. That has been the process at WQA forever. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BWilkins, if the user does not want to discuss the issue, this is not the proper forum for resolving the issue, and such a thread should be removed asap. The anonymous issue has nothing to do (or at least little to do) with it being a non-logged in user, and more to do with the user going so far as to remove the automatic signing of their comment to avoid identification. If an issue is that bad, another forum is necessary to deal with it. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fairy snuff. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility/Poll - 93 editors so far

To date 93 editors have edited Wikipedia:Civility/Poll. We really need to see quite a few more to get a broader idea of consensus. Even if the subject doesn't interest you please drop in and let us know what you think. Let's really get a broad consensus this time. If you feel the wrong questions are being asked, then propose one yourself at the bottom. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

WQA-notice template

I'm not sure if you have noticed from the front page instructions, but I have created a {{subst:WQA-notice}} template, based on the ANI one. You officially only need to use it without any piping. It's written so that 3rd party editors can use it, however, if you're 3rd party, you should drop the {{subst:User:Bwilkins/didnotnotify}} template on the original poster's page. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions on sections

I am interested if it is acceptable to name a person in the title of the subsection? This appears like the norm, but I maybe mistaken. Ikip (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Since this presumably is about the section known as "Lar" or as "Implications of template and edit summary use" I'd say that it almost always is, and that's the generally accepted practice. However there are exceptions, and this is one of them. Please note that Ikip is not accusing me of a breach of etiquette, but rather asking about whether his removal of something was a breach. The question is bigger than any one particular editor. But if Ikip wants to go with an editor's name, I suggest his. ++Lar: t/c 03:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• I concur with Lar here. Ikip is point-ily templating regulars, and is being generally unpleasant. If a username must go in the subject line, it should be "Ikip." UnitAnode 03:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• The project page currently has multiple sections that are titled by a user name, to allow easy navigation to those looking at the page that such an editor is being discussed. If the question were being asked by a third party, the section might be titled "Ikip & Lar", but since the set of diffs offered by Ikip are about Ikip's interactins with Lar, and Lar is the subject of his concerns, a section title of "Lar" seems appropriate and per conventions. A Wikiquette alert is a Wikiquette alert. I've reviewed procedures for this page to better understand the instruction to editors posting an alert. It lists no exceptions to naming a section, and it seems Ikip was following the extablished precedent of other sections. How/why is this instance being treated differently? What makes this an exception? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

  The actual issue to be dealt with are those currently outlined in the subject header. Ikip was angry because Lar called him on his removal of another user's comments at an AFD, and brought the issue here, instead of working it out with Lar. To me, WQA should not be used as some kind of weapon, so an innocuous header, outlining the issues to be dealt with in the thread, is a far better option than allowing Ikip to start a thread with Lar's username as the title, simply because he's in a bit of a tiff. UnitAnode 04:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

  My understanding is that a Wikiquette alert is the proper and prescribed "next step" if an editor feels that discussions elsewhere are not being fruitful in resolving a situation. Ikip and Lar bumped heads, or Ikip felt they did, and now Ikip has offered the situation for wider input. Yes, Lar is a terrific admin, but if Ikip felt that discussions were not helpful, he did right the right thing to proceed to a forum where he could seek impartal opinion, rather than stay in dicussions that could easily have gone awry. In considering the other sections on the project page, I can surmise they were brought here similarly because the filing editors felt a need for an outside view in order to avoid continuing a 'tiff' elsewhere... and now we have Ikip and his section "Lar". I personally feel that an innnocuous section title, polite and neutral as it is, does not serve to inform of the persons under discussion, only of the general topic, and as such runs contrary to established norms. By your reasoning though, and since all the listed alerts may have one side or the other involved in a 'tiff' of one kind or another, it may then be proper to remove all user names from header titles and instead substitute various innocuous 'subject names' to them. And then to modfy procedures for this page, adding a cavet to instruct that user names should not be used in header titles in order to avoid any negative connotations. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It may be instructive to look at the current list of headings in the TOC of the page. There are several headings that are more than just a name, and one or two others that have no editor name in the heading at all. I don't think a formal rewrite of any procedure is warranted, nor do I think names should never be used. Just not always, as in this case. ++Lar: t/c 06:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, not all section titles include a name, just as many section titles do... presumedly the intent of the filing editor in order to immediately assist other editor's navigation to a section and discussion to which they may have interest. Like you, I do not believe a rewrite of the prcedures is required, but offered that in a response to the reasons proffered by Unitanode supporting the renaming of the alert filed by Ikip, as what is good for the gander should then be good for the goose. I do not feel the section should have been renamed simply to appear inocuous, or to make it appear that a respected admin is not the subject. You do terrific work here Lar, but multiple reverts over the section's name might look bad in light of that section's very discussion about the earlier differences of opinion over Ikip's removal of what he felt was a personal attack of A Nobody. He may see your wishing to not be openly named at alert and your then your editing the title to remove your name to be quite similar to his own not wishing a perceived attack to exist in an AfD discussion and his removing it. Yikes. Its only a section name, afterall. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Bickering

Ladies and gents ... I'm not going to point fingers, but I want to remind everyone that although it's ok to disagree with each other's methods of resolution, that should certainly not detract from the WQA entry that we're trying to resolve. It's key that the united front is shown - and that front is towards the issue, not each other, as the "guilty" party just sits back and laughs, and we will be overall lowering the respect of this forum. If you do have issues with the other person's handling, I recommend using the e-mail them feature, and be sure that only constructive criticism is used. The better that we all help in this forum, the better for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwilkins (talk • contribs)

Amen to that. I hope others who want to contribute here take the effort to read through this also. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

BMW, your note is worded so politely and diplomatically, that I have a hard time understanding what it is you actually want people to avoid doing; your reference to a "united front" in particular confuses me.

If you're saying keep any disagreements civil, and try to remain focused on the underlying issue rather than get sidetracked, I'd certainly agree with that. If anyone thinks I haven't done so, please let me know.

But if you're saying that once a WQA "regular" has made a "decision", people shouldn't disagree with it publicly, in the interests of a "united front", then I really have to disagree with that. This isn't the junior varsity version of ANI, with a couple of people acting as stand-in admins. It's a place to get outside opinions on behavioral issues before they become fodder for ANI. As such, if I have a differing opinion from a previous one that "resolves" an issue, I'm going to feel free to express it, in a polite and constructive way, in this forum. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that if one person makes a recommendation that they are not 100% completely trashed in public for making that recommendation. We're all here to have different points of view and ways to respond, but there's a right way and a wrong way - and detracting from the attempts to resolve the original issue does not help. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree -- UnitAnode 14:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Just making clear that my agreement here is with Floque's note. UnitAnode 15:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with BWilkins. Each contributor must comment exclusively on the Wikiquette Alert; never on the other comments. It is actually very beneficial for the person raising the Alert to see a spectrum of views - it is very satisfying to see that another human being agrees with their view and sympathises with their predicament. It is also beneficial to see that their view does not have universal support, so maybe their complaint is not as serious as they first imagined. It is also beneficial for the perpetrator named in the Alert to see that there is a spectrum of views towards their behaviour. For these benefits to be realised it requires that independent contributors analyse, and comment, objectively on the Alert. There is no need for all contributors to display the same conclusion. It is important that contributors don't quarrel among themselves, or even comment publicly on other contributions. Dolphin51 (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up and greatly shortened header

I removed a lot of the repetitive language that no one was reading anyhow due to its length. Note that the volunteer instructions have been moved to a sub-page (here). There's a link to that sub-page on the upper right hand corner of the main WQA project page. Generally things should hopefully now be clearer and concise. Comments/suggestions, etc welcome. Nja²⁴⁷ 22:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made a few changes too, including adding a tabbed interface (instead of an entire section to give the same information). Generally, things should be more clear for newer users who turn up at this page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I do like the tabs. Overall the clarity should be beneficial to all involved. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 10:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I found it hard to find the volunteer instructions; as they appear in small type on the top right and don't indicate what they are instructions for. The only reason I able to find them is I remember from a year ago they used to be here, checked this talk page and found this entry. So I'm adding a topic heading to the header to ease navigation. Gerardw (talk) 12:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Etiquette vs Misunderstanding

moved from main page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstandings are inevitable.

Etiquette is focus of this page. It's important.

Different.

Subjects here are often confused.

An editor's misunderstanding is absolutely NOT excuse for breach of etiquette.

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This may be a simple format mistake but can you explain why you made this section? It doesn't seem to be a valid alert. If this was a comment - please locate it to that particular section's discussion. Thanks. --A3RO (mailbox) 03:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

A certainly relevant comment regarding various very recent content on this page.

May be format mistake, but something that is thoughtful, politely stated and potentially useful and perhaps even tolerated by some (not all) editors. Calamitybrook (talk) 03:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - This was moved from project to talk page by User:Ncmvocalist, and I will not attempt to categorize their intention in the move (although it is perhaps a respectful alternative to removal). The actionable aspect (although not stated) perhaps has to do with complex issues of WP:Civility (some of which are raised at Wikipedia:Civility/Poll). I.E., somewhere in the midst of that cloud of disagreement and perspectives the above "fits" ... somehow. But that is a broader issue than this page is meant to deal with. Anyway: glad to have read it (however formatted). Proofreader77 (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Off WQA for a bit

Ok, I've been around WQA for ages now, and obviously have a thick skin. However, during one of our recent WQA's, I gave an editor a warning for his treatment of you neutral third party editors who simply try and help. It was clear (and perhaps not a total attack directly, but a clear "screw you"), and having re-read the original WQA, I stick by it - it was a warning, that's it, with a quite polite and clear explanation. As I'm now getting attacked outside of WQA for it, even though I clearly point things out, I would rather not have focus on me, and ensure that the focus is resolving differences without needs for blocks, etc. I stick by our goals in WQA, but I'm removing it from my watchlist for awhile. If you need me, you know where to reach me. Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Late response- I brought an issue here today and decided to review some other issues here, only to find numerous threads not being responded to at all. Clearly this board is now under-staffed, and could use your thick skin and good judgement once again. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hardly surprising considering the way some of the people here treat the third-parties, I gave a third-party opinion recently and was greeted with this sarcastic reply from on of the involved parties: "Very.. non-committal! Thanks for the "piercing" insight into the heart of the debate, without the bother of "trawling" through it. Seriously, it's good to get outside opinions here, though...", although this has not stopped me from editing WQA, and I don't think that that particular comment is of a particularly serious nature, I am concerned that if this kind of behaviour becomes prevalent among involved parties it may discourage newer users from "joining" the project, as well as encouraging older users to leave (new/older in reference to time spent at WQA). Maybe we need some way to deal with this kind of thing? Spitfire^Tally-ho! 11:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I must admit that I used to reply to threads here quite a bit for a short period of time, but I found issue with how sometimes responding seemed to almost drag you in as an involved party, when you were only trying to offer advice. Personally I think that with this specific noticeboard, it needs to be highlighted that it is a very early part of the process, and aims to diffuse situations rather than ruling as a jury over them to decide which side is in the right/wrong. --Taelus (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we could have an editnotice to that effect, as well as encouraging users to remain civil? Not sure how much of an effect that would have, but it couldn't hurt. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 11:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I used to be a fairly regular commenter here too, but I wearied of it after a while. I found that at least half the reports here were either entirely in the wrong place, were unfounded, or the reporting party had done things as bad or worse than the user they reported. I still think it's a worthwhile effort, but admin work keeps me pretty occupied these days. I tried to help with a few cases while I was here though. Of course the core problem is that we are dealing with civility problems here, so incivility and rudeness to those trying to resolve those issues is just something that comes with the territory. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

To paraphrase, Beeblebrox said this board needs an editor with thick skin. I disagree. I think what is needed is a very thin skin, to perceive what exactly is causing offense. But along with that, a calm temper is needed. I see no unfounded reports. If someone feels offended and wants help, this is the proper board. Also, etiquette isn't about who is more in the wrong, so it makes no difference if the reporting party has behaved badly. I see the work here as isolating the problem behaviors, and suggesting other behaviors to use instead. --Una Smith (talk) 07:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

WQA is about getting to the root of the issue, and then diffusing it. My neighbour's oldest son will hit his younger brother. The younger brother then hits back. The older brother will then go to his dad and say "Billy hit me!" It's vital in WQA to look at antecedents to the behaviours. Thick skin is needed because people forget the #1 rule: do not attack those who volunteer to help. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

So you simultaneously need both a thick skin and a thin skin. Call it the WQA duality. Gerardw (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Leather and lace LOL. There's also the very important adage: "someone being uncivil to you does not excuse your own incivility, it merely explains it." (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)