Wikipedia talk:Wikiquette assistance/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Initial discussion

Copied from WP:RFC. Maurreen 23:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here's a draft that could be added to the RFC page or somesuch, if people agree.

Wikiquette alerts are an option for a quick, streamlined way to get an outside view. Just post a single link here to the problem as you see it (for example, a single posting or section of a talk page). Label the comment neutrally and post the date but do not sign or use names.

Outsiders who visit the link are encouraged to make a constructive comment about any Wikiquette violations they see. Postings in this section should be removed after seven days. Maurreen 10:03, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer a different name from "Wikiquette" alert - it sounds too close to "etiquette lesson" (which may be the idea, but a term less likely to provoke a defensive response would be better). Also, I'd like a more neutral word than "violations" for the same reason. Otherwise, let's go for it, it's worth a try, jguk 11:11, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
PS I think this should be in addition to the RfC page (at least for now)
It seems sensible to me, too. Aside from the tweeness of 'Wikiquette' I have no problems with it, and it seems to be in general use. Would 'breaches' be better than 'violations'? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What is "tweeness"? Maurreen 12:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In U.S. English, 'twee' is perhaps 'cutesy'? Self-consciously (and overly) sweet (it's C19th, and comes from the affected pronunciation of 'sweet' as 'tweet'). Like referring to children as 'the little ones', or to the stars as 'god's daisy chain'... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:41, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I'm not attached to the language. I only used "Wikiquette" because the word seems prevalent on Wikipedia. But a lot of stuff seems like it should be just basic manners to me. Maurreen 12:47, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:00, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is a good idea. I don't mind the name Wikiquette alert myself because Wikiquette is the word used here for the way we're supposed to behave. See Wikipedia:Wikiquette. But I'd be fine with another name too. SlimVirgin 21:23, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
Thank. If anyone would like different language, I'm open to suggestions. Maurreen 22:03, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As I said, I've no real objection to 'Wikiquette' (suppresses slight shudder), nor indeed to 'violations'; I only suggested 'breaches' because of Jguk's concern. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:37, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm broadly in favour, though I have a number of (hopefully clarifying) questions. Is wikiquette precisely the scope of the proposed addition? Or is it more like "policy violations in general, but I don't quite want to start an RfC yet"? And the location is important, as RfC has one set of connotations, elsewhere would have other ones. And where would agreements/rebuttal go, if the link is not to a talk page? I assume to the corresponding one, but perhaps make that explicit, or require the link to be to a talk page comment (the Wikiquettealertian can always create one for the purpose). Alai 22:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I just made the page a few minutes ago. Can we move the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Wikiquette alerts? Maurreen 23:05, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Answers

  1. I hadn't considered non-Wikiqette policy conflicts either way.
  2. The links would generally be to the talk page where the problem is perceived, and any further talk would take place there.
  3. An exception would be if someone is making nasy comments in edit summaries. Then the link would be to the diff showing that. And ensuing comments would go to a relevant talk page, to be decided by the outsider viewing the link. Do you think this should all be specified on the project page? Maurreen 23:14, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Requests on oneself

I've added a sentence as it strikes me that from time to time users may want comments on their own behaviour - are they going too far/striking the right balance/is there a better way of doing things? jguk 22:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dates

Should new entries be at the bottom or top of the list? The page should specify. --Wahoofive 17:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, I specified that new entries should go at the bottom, and put them in that order. But if someone wants it the other way, that's OK with me. Maurreen 18:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Individuals rather than pages

Frequently the problem at issue concerns a person rather than an article or Talk page, and the behaviour of the person is spread over a number of articles. At the moment the system doesn't really allow for that. For example, I have a problem with an editor's behaviour which I'd like to deal with without going to RfC: I'd like to present it on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts like this:

Is this sort of thing acceptable, and if so, could we allow for it in the instructions? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm undecided in general, but it seems like this particular case is more appropriate on RFC. Maurreen 16:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, in fact it's now gone to RfC. Still, I'd be interested in the general point. If I'd felt that this page was suitable I'd have placed Mr Tan here before now, and perhaps the RfC would have been avoided. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
On the one hand, I can see value in using lower steps before or instead of RFC.
But if multiple links are given about one person, especially if they are listed for alerts by the same person, that can at least be perceived as ganging up on the "problem user." (That's not worded as well as I'd like, but it's the best I can think of right now.)
Users are notified of RFC. But they aren't required to be notified of Wikiquette alerts. If an alert were to draw a lot of outside attention to one user across a number of pages, especially if that attention was from the same people, I think it could backfire.
For instance, let's say a similar alert was filed against me. I'd feel like, "Hey, where are all you people coming from? Why are a bunch of people against me all of a sudden -- people I haven't even been involved with, and who haven't been involved with these articles."
I think I would feel defensive at best. I'd likely also feel that the person filing against me hadn't been open. Maurreen 17:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. Would informing the subject of the WA not overcome it, though? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Seems OK to me. Maurreen 18:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Mixed feelings about this one; feel we in any event should address this in some way on the project page (either to say in what manner, or to say this is not fair game). We seem to have had a couple of instances where only users are listed, without any substantiative link to a dispute on any given talk page. This also is somewhat unsatisfactory in that it doesn't make clear where the discussion on whatever the "issues" are, ought to take place -- simply descending en masse on the "target's" talk page seems dubious. Alai 05:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Unfounded alert by Irmgard

Neither of you are following the instructions for the alerts (use only neutral labels; do not use names). Maurreen 05:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Got that for my part, Maureen - will take more care to really formulate neutrally next time. Thanks to you I can retire to bed wiser than I was in the morning :-) --Irmgard 21:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why does it say "do not sign"?

Can someone please explain why it says not to sign contributions to Wikiquette alerts page? I presume the reason is that if you want to complain here about someone's rudeness on a talk page, you don't want it known that YOU made the complaint. But won't people know by looking at the history and the diffs anyway? Or am I missing something? Ann Heneghan 17:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's in the hope of having things more neutrally judged. Yes, you can look at who added the item if you want, but if you want to try to remain neutral it's easier if you don't know who the person who added the item is, you might have had previous dealings with them, either positive or negative. --W(t) 21:56, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

Ad hominem

What can be done about ad hominem, PoV and dishonest reports made on this project page (or responses to reports on this project page)? Andy Mabbett 6 July 2005 12:47 (UTC)

Perhaps you could wonder why they were made in the first place, and try to enter into constructive dialogue with the person who made the report. Remember, they may be ad hominem and dishonest (POV is applicable to articles, not here) to you, but not necessarily to the user who made the report. Proto t c 19:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I've removed due to POV:

  • User:Sir_Edgar has also made false allegations and replied comments in bad faith.
  • Note: User:Andylkl and User:__earth were very touchy and hostile from the beginning and starting acting childishly when they couldn't win an argument. They held on to a World Bank technical term for dear life to promote their country as an "upper-middle income country", ignoring the overwhelming evidence (from the CIA, BBC, United Nations, Asian Development Bank, and elsewhere) that Malaysia is a "middle-income country". Even the sentence that was lifted (mentioning that Malaysia is "an upper-middle income country") originally says it's "a middle-income country". Anyhow, they are both acting very hypocritical especially since they were the first to make false accusations against me of "twisting" facts. And this is from the get-go. I don't appreciate their tag-teaming on me and as a new user, I found their behavior rude and unwelcoming.--Sir Edgar 00:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Davy Blue

Presented (mostly) without commentary:

brenneman(t)(c) 02:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Moved from main page - August 14

I quote the official policy:
"Many Wikipedians remove personal attacks on sight, and although this isn't policy it's often seen as an appropriate reaction to extreme personal abuse."
Furthermore, I quote the Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks page:
"This page is a Wikipedia guideline. [...] This guideline is disputed. [...] This is not official policy. A clear consensus did not emerge from a discussion and vote on the talk page."
Moveover, this supposed "personal abuse" consists of valid comments on the behaviour of User:Pigsonthewing, initially contributed to a relevant section of User:Nick Boulevard's talk page. User:Pigsonthewing seems to have an extremely expansive definition of "personal abuse" that covers pretty much any comment critical of his conduct. I do not consider that any of my comments would be interpretted as "personal attacks", let alone "extreme personal abuse" if made about almost any other editor, and I have no intention of allowing User:Pigsonthewing to censor my discussion on his frequently denounced editing tactics. 80.255 16:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
It is well established that users are free to keep or remove messages from their talk pages as they see fit. It is not for another user to insist that they do not. -16:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree. This was not User:pigsonthewing's talk page - it was User:Nick Boulevard's talk page and my talk page; he has also been doing the same thing at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Nick Boulevard. Have a look at the history. He can censor his own talk page as much as he likes; but his interference hasn't been confined to his own talk page. 80.255 22:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Pigsonthewing has been attempting to censor and remove valid and relevant comments on him from a number of other user's talk pages, pretending that they were "personal abuse" when they manifestly weren't. A number of users, including User:Nick Boulevard, whose talk page was largely affected, requesting he stop, but he has consistently ignored these requests. Examples from today: [16], [17], [18]. 80.255 16:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Use of main page

The lead paragraph of the main page indicates that discussion of issues don't belong: This page is not the place to discuss any real or perceived Wikiquette breaches. What is the feeling on moving other editor's comments to this talk page? And what about removing sigs/extra info from the main page?
brenneman(t)(c) 03:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Generally, I'm disinclined to refactor anything from the front page. Stuff that comes here is usually fairly low-grade upsets. Moving people's comments around, especially to other pages, is likely to inflame a simmering situation. Discussion, if it occurs, can occasionally provide a brief respite from the relevant talk page, and sometimes that seems to be all that is needed. It doesn't really do anyone any harm, and 'enforcing' procedure is often a less sensitive way to proceed. As for sigs etc, well, I don't really know why that point is on the front page, since there's the history anyway. -Splash 04:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I was thinking the exact reverse. ^_^ I care less about policy than about outcomes: My impression was that this was often used as a place for a "free kick" at another user, as opposed to "here's where a problem exists, please have a look". If an editor is being a jerk, telling us so isn't required, we can see it when we examine their contributions. If they aren't being a jerk, seeing themselves called a jerk only inflames things. Leaving comments unsigned could be seen as one way of encouraging leaving only links/diffs.
brenneman(t)(c) 05:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I see what you mean. So perhaps we should very gently move the comments to the talk page, under the date's heading and leave a hyper-emollient and hypo-allergenic parenthetical message saying we did so, and sign it. We should say at the same time that this is not a forum for discussion — we will come to you. Sigs, well, it's fairly academic, but an addition to the baby-soft message would be ok. With the page history around though, it's more than a little bit pointless. I'll see if I can refactor the front page a bit to make it less amorphous, without changing the content, to make things a bit clearer. -Splash 00:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
However, some judgement would be needed in what I said above. The first example currently under August 31 has a response by ThomasK — that's perfectly harmless and could be allowed to stand as it gives some additional context and isn't really discussion. -Splash 00:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, and I like the changes to the main page. I might like the "we'll come to you" be bigger and bolder, but the addition about checking your own behaviour is excellent. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Purpose of this page

In the larger scheme of things, I'd like to see this page used both to head off things prior to RfC and for the kind of low-level hostility that might never get to RfC but is damaging none the less. Thought / comments?- brenneman(t)(c) 00:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making. But as much as I do, I think that was the original intention. Maurreen (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
What I'm thinking is:
  • Some people seem to respond well to a polite "Please don't do that." Their behavior would probably never make an RfC, but can make lots of people pretty unhappy if they aren't told to stop. Some people are creeps, WQA may actually have a negative impact on their behavior.
  • It can also be quite hard to tell if placing a message here has had any impact. The one time I used this seemed to do nothing.
  • If it were more clear (in some way) how / if these were actioned, it might help in avoiding over warning people in the first category, and help document evidence for those people in the second.
Is that more clear? brenneman(t)(c) 05:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether the page has had any effect; I haven't used it. But you might have had a similar situation as I once had with an article RFC -- as far as I know, no one responded via the RFC. I think sometimes people list things, but don't respond to listings by other people.
I'm not sure what you mean about "actioned." Do you have a more-specific suggestion? Maurreen (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Using this page as a replacement for WP:PAIN

This system seems to be a much better way of handling abuse issues than WP:PAIN has been. Should WP:PAIN be redirected here? --Barberio 12:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose While similar, Wikiquette alerts seems a little more informal, and more in the way of getting outside parties to help in dispute resolution, whereas PAIN, as designed, is supposed to be for ongoing complaints serious enough that admin intervention is required.
  • Comment I would suggest that a link to Wikiquette alerts be added to the top of PAIN, pointing out that if admin intervention is not required, but you want to get outside views, to try WP:WQA instead. MartinRe 13:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There is already an existing process to call for admin action, WP:RFC/USER. I don't see a reason to split effort over multiple processes. WP:WQA serves the function of "informal, quick and non-administrative", WP:RFC/USER serves the function of calling attention from admin. WP:PAIN tries to straddle the two. --Barberio 14:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Nope, WP:RFC/USER doesn't call for admin action, it is requesting comments, not actions, and from any user, not admins in particular. It's more like a formal version of here. I do agree that PAIN is a little out of place, for something that listed under WP:NPA as the last resort, it's far easier to lodge a complaint there than any of the previous steps recommended. (correction to my previous comment on talk:PAIN, the other steps are only suggested, not required as I implied by "must be tried", but they do apply to personal attacks, and not just content dispute) Regards, MartinRe 15:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for new lead

JA: How about this: "Wikiquette alerts are about as useful as crying in your beer — except for the part about the beer." Hey, I don't mean it. I'm just goofing around. Jon Awbrey 21:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Instructions are not being followed

  • A single link to the problem or issue as you see it (for example, a single posting or section of a talk page).
  • Label the comment neutrally but do not sign and do not use names (type ~~~~~, which gives only a timestamp).
  • Please avoid embarking on a discussion of the points raised on this page. Carry on discussing it wherever you originally were — editors responding to posts here will come to you!

If you look at this list, almost every post is violating at least 2 of the 3. Anyway to make more clear point number 2 and 3Eagle talk 20:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Who is responsible for archiving the main page?

Can anyone manually archive the page? I archived an old request, but I didn't see my edit in the edit history which makes me think that I'm not supposed to archive requests myself. --Inahet 19:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been thinking we need to bot it. Does anyone have an objection to making this a EssjayBot II archived page? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
If it would archive any section that is older than 7 days without a comment, that would be fine; one tricky aspect is that archiving has been by month. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Please use English" template

In case anyone is interested, I have created a polite template reminding users to use the English language in their talk page comments. You can view and edit the template at Template:Useenglish. —Psychonaut 21:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Since the template mentions Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, I strongly recommend you also post a note on the talk page for those guidelines. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this page needed?

This page much reminds me of the thankfully deleted WP:PAIN and WP:RFI. Am I missing something? Is there a reason why this is of any more utility than any of of those deleted wikilawyering boards? Please advise. --Irpen 02:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The reason is that this is not a wikilawyering board. Sancho McCann 09:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
That what some claimed at the other two as well. --Irpen 09:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you looking to find out why others believe that this is of more utility that the previously deleted pages? Sancho McCann 09:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I am looking for someone to give reasons why this should not be MfDed as well. I do not see why not but I am open to hear explanations if they are any different from the failed attempts to keep those boards. --Irpen 09:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I have been helped posting an alert on this page to get feedback about my own behaviour. I haven't been helped by the other pages. Sancho McCann 17:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Diffs? --Irpen 23:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean? Sancho McCann 23:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I mean can you cite the incident your are implying and show why could it not have been addressed at, say, your own talk page, if someone had a complaint about your behavior? --Irpen 23:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
But, nobody had a complaint about my behaviour. It was my first dispute-ish type of thing and I was trying to find out if I had handled the situation appropriately or if there were any points for improvement. The specific thread is at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#3-February-2007. It's the second thread started... relating to the comb-over. As it turns out, both sides of the discussion had handled themselves civilly, and I also received some advice for improvement. I don't think this could have been handled at my talk page without going out and wrangling another editor to come and look at my recent discussion. Sancho McCann 23:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
This alert page has the advantage of being more informal than more daunting and policy wonkish processes such as WP:RFC. It can address issues which, while they may seem minor to others, are disruptive and distressing for those involved, and fall between the jurisdictions of other noticeboards. (Example: a WP:WQA participant resolved a dispute very quickly at Talk:Vanderbilt University#PSK January 2007.) — Athænara ✉ 00:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

index

It would be helpful to have an index of some sort showing the users being discussed, as in RfC, and elsewhere, so people can take a glance & see quickly if there's anyone about whom they might want to comment.DGG 18:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

The title refers to the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

Now that we've been BOLD and reverted, its time to discuss. I personally am unfamiliar with this project page and, admittedly, come to it with a certain set of preconceptions. Can anyone provide examples (read, diffs) where posting to this project page helped? That can help me make better judgements. --Iamunknown 21:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude, BRD finds out who you're supposed to be talking with. Hmm, you're supposed to be talking with ...<looks>... Amarkov now? :-) --Kim Bruning 21:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
/me goes and finds Amarkov --Iamunknown 21:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
My issue is not at all with shutting the thing down; I agree that this isn't working, and I'm not sure it is a good idea anyway. The problem I have is that it was shut down due to a handful of people discussing it somewhere I haven't actually been able to find yet. Shutting down something with a 2 year history should have quite a bit of discussion. -Amarkov moo! 04:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I actually happen to agree! Since you reverted, though, are you willing to discuss? --Iamunknown 04:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course, so long as I don't have to support keeping this. -Amarkov moo! 04:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
You reverted, so we assume you actually do support keeping this. If this is not the case, please undo your revert. Thank you. :-) --Kim Bruning 13:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC) don't make edits you don't happen to support yourself. If everyone did that, at some point in time we might actually find ourselves in situations that no-one in the community supports, and yet everyone enforces. :-/ So Dont Do That (tm)
Let me clarify. I would agree with deleting it after a discussion, but I do not agree with deleting it now. -Amarkov moo! 17:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, let's discuss then. Why do you want to keep it, other than that reason? Do you wish to know if we are following some kind of procedure? --Kim Bruning 18:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC) if we replace the historic tag, at some point someone will come along who truely objects and reverts it, and then we can discuss with them. Right now, you're the only focus of discussion, and this will remain so until we reach a (temporary/preliminary/partial) consensus. At your option we can discuss as long as you like, or we can move on, if you're satisfied that we are following a sane procedure.
There is no other reason, but relying on BRD does not work to solve it. Even if you do manage to convince the person who reverts it, you've just added one person to the small group of people who discussed this. And like I said, shutting down something with 2 years of history requires a large discussion, involving many people. -Amarkov moo! 18:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, people will keep reverting until we've talked with all of them. A lot of pennies added together make a pound, and all that. :-) This might take some time, but there's no really big hurry. That and it's easier to mediate 1-by-1 upfront than it is to mediate afterwards. :-) --Kim Bruning 18:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay then, let's see how that works. -Amarkov moo! 18:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought this page had gone.

But apparently, that was actually WP:PAIN ?

What's the use of this particular page? Can we simplify it out somehow?

--Kim Bruning 21:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It's very simplified already. In my opinion, it's a quick version of WP:RFC, to notify other users on minor specific incidents. I don't support the closure. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 01:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed; people will just clutter up the admin noticeboard with complaints Johnbod 01:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If you want to get rid of it, why not do a proper MFD? Tuxide 02:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, technically MfD is a deletion discussion. It has been used to close down (or attempt to close down projects) like Esperanza, WP:PAIN, WP:RFC/NAME, etc. Technically, however, all ya need to do (which is what we're doing) is the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. It may or may not go on to MfD. --Iamunknown 03:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    • MFD is not a proper venue. It is not proper because it is not at all useful, as you can see from the last attempt to list the association of members advocates, for instance. The project talk page is a proper venue--Kim Bruning 13:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Use Wikiquette alerts or alternatives?

I've found this page to be pretty useful in trying to deal with some issues without having to go in guns blazing with process that other editors find threatening, obscure, and downright difficult to understand/bother with. --MalcolmGin 03:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As I scan through the posts on the page, it looks like most are either editorial disputes or reports about incivil people. These definitely need to be dealt with. Why not go to Wikipedia:Third opinion, which is designed like an RFC but is totally lightweight, i.e. you just add a link to the relevant talk page and start discussing there? --Iamunknown 04:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That's good to know about, thank you. I'll keep watching this page to see if I can help out and try to divert folks to Wikipedia:Third opinion. I think I found this page through some link on some more official guideline, but if I can figure out where, I'll go try to fix it and point to Wikipedia:Third opinion instead. --MalcolmGin 05:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I really like that page. I agree that RfC is a bit too heavy for a lot of situations (I haven't used it and I hope I don't ever have to), so third opinion (TO) is generally the way to go before escalating it to RfC. :-) --Iamunknown 06:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I have never heard of Wikipedia:Third opinion, and I think having both pages around could be quite cumbersome. I'm thinking it might be a good idea to merge the both of them, with the resulting project name be something different. Currently, if I want a third opinion on a content dispute, it could be more appropriate to go to WP:WQA instead when it's obvious that one side is trying to push POV. Tuxide 09:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
'Third opinion only deals with disputes between two individuals. W-Alerts, as it stands, allows for "user X has been uncivil to four editors" or suchlike. Andy Mabbett 10:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

How about taking things to editor assistance? And 3O should also support >2 people. It's a bit annoying that they don't. --Kim Bruning 13:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion (TO) is also only for two editors who are civil enough to have agreed to have their dispute informally mediated. W-Alerts is available for unilateral complaints about uncivil or unfair editors (in the view of the aggrieved party) who won't (or can't communicate well enough to) negotiate their position.
Much of the time the name-calling stage needs to be calmed down (if possible) before a meaningful TO can even be agreed to. If it can be calmed down, frequently no TO is necessary, if the mediator can cite Wikiguides covering the situation. Milo 22:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • At least in theory, this page is nice in getting well-meaning hotheads to realize they've been using overly harsh words. I've had two or three good experiences with that, but I have not watched this page long enough to see if it actually works in practice. There are also several long-standing editors that are fully aware they're incivil and don't care, so this wouldn't help there. >Radiant< 16:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with your first point; but in the latter case it also provides a useful marker for the future, and a means of getting a neutral third party to observe and comment on what's happening. Andy Mabbett 17:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I like Radiant's concept of "well-meaning hotheads" who could benefit from this page. (What's with the spectrum color change?) Also editors who say mild culturally-offensive things only because they grew up with families who talked like that, and are willing to be educated. Also editors who get intransigent or tendentious because they think their understanding of Wikiguides is correct, or their interpretation is a consensus, even though it isn't, but who are willing to be educated with cites by a non-admin neutral party.
For future marking the invcivil or tendentious editors who don't care, I suggest specifically authorizing meditators to advance those situations to A/NI, with their opinion that an admin intervention is needed. If they are specifically authorized (but not required to), that discourages the troublesome editors (one or all) from blaming the mediator for reporting to admins a situation unresolvabled at Wikiquette alerts. Milo 20:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I withdraw my earlier statement about the usefulness of this page. My earlier good experiences appear to have been the uncommon exception, and in general this page doesn't appear to do have much use. >Radiant< 08:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts is or should be...

(Sorry for the arbitrary break, my Firefox is teh sux.) The feeling I'm getting is that there are waaaay to many forms of intervention, dispute resolution and, oh, shall we say, shrubbery on Wikipedia. Not that redundancy is necessarily a bad thing; the various forms of mediation, of article- / site-banning etc are indeed helpful. And I cannot condemn W-alert editors: they were here first and, hey, I helped form Wikipedia:Editor assistance which basically added a whole new process to the list of X processes.

What I am particularly concerned about, however, is that this particular process is a prime place merely to vet a particular person. It does not require that multiple people certify a dispute or agree to begin to work together (as 3O and RFC do) and it lets disputes sit out on the main page for (what appears to be) unattended lengths. I am firmly of the opinion that it is always better to address the person with whom you are having a dispute first on the relevant talk page. I fear that leaving W-alerts out for all to see will merely create bad tension between editors. Furthermore since, for most of the W-alerts I've examined, the editor who filed the alert does not provide an update, it leaves me assuming that the editor who they reported as uncivil, racist, etc. is still uncivil, racist, etc.

These concerns can of course be addressed, original alerts can be followed up, etc. But it would require a different structure, more "clerk"-ing type activities (oh, and please don't call those who do them clerks, or else I will be very unhappy :-() than is currently implemented. I'll hang around for a while, try to help out, see if my concerns are alleviated and, if they are not, then I'll have first-hand experience (which I obviously currently lack) to back up my arguments with. A win-win situation I guess ^_^;; --Iamunknown 22:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• "this particular process is a prime place merely to vet a particular person" That's exactly right, and it is an ecology-of-justice niche that is missing from the rest of the dispute resolution process. When a justice niche is missing (call it a cleaning process), unresolved disputes build up (call it dirt), and the dirt hinders editing needed to progress the project. When unresolved disputes build up, some percent of minor offenders become long-term abusers. Long term, low-level abusers have an incentive to never become bad enough for RFC-user; rather they get the message that they can always get away with being just bad enough to gum up normal editing. This is a problem in many places at Wikipedia. I think it's getting worse due to the rising user population and the proportionally lagging appointments of admins.
• Wikipedia:Editor assistance is primarily a resource for content or Wikiguide expertise, not the direct administration of dispute resolution, the latter being equivalent to a system of justice. Mediators should be able to go to Editor assistance when they don't know how to decide the content issue which underlies most Wikiquette cases.
• "it is always better to address the person with whom you are having a dispute first on the relevant talk page." At the Wikiquette-alerts point in a dispute, two editors have already addressed each other, disagreed on some issue without resolution, and in many case are engaged in name-calling or other disturbing behaviors (editing another's post in my unreviewed case). There is already bad tension between editors.
• IMHO, the major problem here is that there isn't a steady supply of mediators being directed to Wikiquette alerts. Where to obtain them? As I previously wrote at the AN/I board:

I think there are a lot of editors who believe they have enough experience to become admins. Wikiquette alerts could be advertised as a place for wannabe admins to display their issue judgment and human relationship skills when future applying for adminship. Also a place for editors to do occasional peacemaking who don't want to be a full time admin. No tools of course, but that shows how good one really is.

• Ignoring disputes makes things worse long term, because good editors do leave the project when they see that they can't get minor justice. By analogy, minor justice is inexpensively available in a real world small claims court. Pre-historically, the tribal chief quickly decided disputes every day. The supervisor at your place of work does this now. Yet if there is a consensed dislike for installing the boss system at Wikipedia, I think a large supply of low level mediators is needed, probably more than one per case to form a peer jury. In many dispute cases, pressure from enough peers will work even without special enforcement powers. Mediators could be asked to report back to the archive of the original alert to state what happened. If it peer mediating doesn't work, then tell the mediator(s) that they can choose to either stop mediating for while to allow a natural cool off, or recommend the situation to AN/I for enforcement. Milo 01:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Milo's comments above about the utility of this page... it fills a small but important niche in the dispute resolution process. And I concur that it can be an excellent proving ground for potential administrators. If an editor is good at helping resolve disputes without the special admin tools, that's a good sign they are becoming worthy of those tools. --Parzival418 08:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Styling

I've done some styling for this page. The page should be more streamlined now, and hopefully more efficient. This page does not require the attention of administrators, so User:Redvers's concern should not exist. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 02:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

How about a nice shrubbery? :) Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

? AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 00:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

suggested page organization improvment

Thank you to AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk), the new page format looks good!

I suggest we also make a change in the way the incidents or requests are organized. When I look at this page, it's difficult to focus in on what needs attention, or what I might be able to help with, because it's all just a list of dates with bullet points. There's no way to scan the table of contents and get an idea of what's happening, as for example can be seen at the Administrators' noticeboard. This page would be more effective and easier to use if we follow that format.

It's true that the dates of the incidents are important because as they age they become less of an issue and we need to know when to drop them or archive them. That could be addressed in various ways:

  • we could add the date to the description in the section heading
  • we could date the section headings and use subsections as a headline for the incidents
  • we could use the section headings for incident descriptions and use a bot to archive any incidents that don't have comments added within a week.

Any of the above would be effective. By including short descriptions in the section or subsection headings, we would be able to get the gist from the table of contents, making it more effective to scan and reply to requests for assistance. --Parzival418 08:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

A quick add-on: I just saw that this idea has been brought up previously as well, by DGG, see above: Wikipedia talk:Wikiquette alerts#index. --Parzival418 08:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Those are good points. I have added descriptions in subheading to all the alerts. By the way, should the date format be changed? I have a little problem with DATE-MONTH-YEAR, personally prefers MONTH-DATE-YEAR. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 17:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that was fast! Looks really good, much easier to understand. I think this will make the page more useful. I agree with you that MONTH-DATE-YEAR would be better - with the day number first as it is now, it the TOC is slow to read because the day numbers are right next to the subsection numbers. Thanks for your work on this! --Parzival418 19:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

consensus request for removing the "close this page" infobox from the main page

I have modified the text of the box to make it more NPOV and less intimidating to editors approaching the page for help. I removed the biased statement that the page "has died a natural death" and I expanded the link to WP:PAIN to the full title of that page, to avoid the bias implied by the presence of the word PAIN. These may seem like small things, but to novice editors coming here for help, they look scary. I also added text to the box to assure editors that they can post here during the discussion and they will not be posting to a dead page.

However, even the modified text interferes with the functioning of the page.

It's time to remove the box at the top of the page suggesting the page be closed. I request discussion/consensus on this.

The most important reason to remove the box is that it is a self-fulfilling prohecy. When a person with a problem comes here to report it or ask for help, seeing that box induces doubt about the effectiveness of this page. Why would one want to post a problem they feel is important to a page that has an official-looking box at the top stating that multiple editors think this page is unmonitored and that it recreates something bad that was deleted?

Maybe there are problems with this page; maybe we don't yet have consensus to keep it (although I think we do); but even so, the infobox on the page is making the situation worse.

Here are additional reasons for removing the box:

  • Since it was placed there, the backlog of the page has been resolved; older incidents have been archived
  • There has been significant discussion here by editors strongly supporting the page, with valid reasons, showing how it can fit into and aid the process of resolving some disputes and take a load off the overloaded admin notice boards
  • This page fills a niche for conflicts or reports that don't belong anywhere else and do not need to be escalated - sometimes after they are reported they just fade away - so the act of reporting them itself may have a beneficial effect
  • This is a good place for aspiring administrators to help resolve conflicts without special powers, if they can get good at that, that says a lot for their worthiness to become an admin
  • The page has been reformatted and improved to increase clarity and make it easier to work with.
  • Improvements are continuing to be discussed here, and the discussions are leading to action (I'm posting some more suggestions for improvement folllowing this section)
  • Even if the page is only moderately or occasionally helpful in particular situations, it's not causing problems or complaints among the editors using it (at least not that I can find).
  • For novice editors, finding their way around the complex Wikiguides for dispute resolution can be confusing and difficult. While we can use redirects or help pages to lead them to the more formal procedures, those become daunting very fast to new editors. This page can be a place where they can see small disputes or minor behavior issues posted and either resolved, ignored to fade away, or escalated. This can be a valuable place to learn about where to go next.
  • There are more reasons but that's all I can think of right now.

Please enter comments here about whether or not to remove the box. If no-one comments, after I while, I'll remove it. I'm waiting a bit, out of respect to those who placed it there and supported closing this page, to allow some time for comments. On the other hand, if someone wants to remove the box right now, that would be fine with me.

If there are still editors who want this page closed, another option would be to move the box from the main page to the top of the talk page. That way, it would not scare away people approaching the page for help, and we can continue the debate here. --Parzival418 20:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No replies yet, so I moved the box to the top of the talk page. Also added a new infobox heading to the main page. --Parzival418 19:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Improving the function of the page

I did reviewed the contents of the main page. Here are a few problems I found and suggestions for fixing them:

  • There is no fast way to know if an incident is resolved, continuing, or stale. Some have only one comment and no reply. Some have a comment and a reply, but no indication of if it was resolved. Some have comments that imply there was discussion elsewhere but no summary of what happened. So, as an editor scanning to help... I feel like giving up because it's too much work to read through reports and then have to guess if my help is needed or not. We could solve this by using the "resolved" template as is done on WP:ANI, or we could add a "resolved incident" section and move the report to that section when it's resolved.
  • We need a way of identifying incidents that need to be, or have been, escalated. When after editors here try to help the parties resolve their differences and the problems persist, they need to move into other areas of the dispute resolution process. We should make suggestions about which direction to send them, and often there will be more than one good choice, so we can suggest multiple options. But when it becomes clear that is needed, the incident is not "resolved", instead it is "open, but we can't help further, suggestions for the next step have been made". For those we should have a different tag. I'm not sure what to call it - "escalate" sounds perhaps too adversarial. But whatever we call it, we should either tag the entry, or add another section to the list and move the entry there.
  • We need a way to indentify reports that have become stale. If a report is placed and no editor enters a reply comment to help or get more information, then either the problem may just fade away, the parties may go elsewhere for help, or if they really need help and believe we can provide it, they can return and post another comment in their section. (This should be made clear in the instructions/intro). I suggest that if a week goes by and there has been no comment of any kind added to a report, then it is stale. We should tag it as stale (which tag can be removed if it is re-activated), or we could move it to a "Stale" section.

With the three items above, we would have an easy-to-scan list of currently open reports that editors can review and provide help if they wish.

Between the method of separating by sections and moving reports vs using templates or tags to indicate "resolved", "move to different venue," or "stale" - I prefer the tags method because that way if the incident is re-activated, the user only needs to remove the template rather than move the whole report to the other section again.

A few more suggestions:

  • Why do the instructions ask users not to sign their posts? It seems to me that makes everything more difficult and also offers the feeling of anonimity, which can change the way users approach the process. That's an illusion of course since the history shows who posted the note, but it seems strange to me that we'd not want to know who is posting the incident, so we or others can see what's happening better. If it's an involved party, we would take that into account. If it's an uninvolved third party, that would also be helpful to know. I think that should be changed in the procedures and we should ask for complete signatures.
  • The wording of the procedure section needs to be clarified and strengthened. The idea of continuing the discussions on the page where the incident occured is valuable and should be the first option. But sometimes, complaints can cross multiple pages and an editor here willing to help could end up needing to leave comments all over the place. If that happens, I think the discussion should be continued on this page, and that should be allowed by our procedure.
  • Also, we need to make a stronger instruction to editors about what to post here as the incident resolves. We need to close the loop. Editors should report a short summary of what they see, perhaps with a diff, and then when they feel the incident has resolved or escalated, they should add the appropriate tag as noted above.
  • We need an instruction to the parties involved, that if an incident that was believed resolved or stale becomes a problem again, or a new incident with the same parties, as long as the prior report has not yet been archived, they should not enter a new report, they should re-activate and continue their comments in the existing report.
  • We need a better schedule for archiving this page. It doesn't have to be done by any one person, but there should be a notice in the archive section that any editor is welcome to archive any incidents older than one week or one month, whatever, as long as it is not still open and active. We also need to choose an archive procedure and explain it in the instructions so that each time there is an archive done it is done with the same consistent method. The archives should retain the headlines and status tages, and not only be done by date.

I believe if we implement some version of the above changes this page can be a streamlined and effective entry-level element of the dispute resolution process.

Comments? --Parzival418 20:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Those are excellent observations. I support the tagging method also, as I don't think sectioning alerts would be effective. Let's see what others say...
  • I think the reason that the instruction asked to not to sign your name is because this page is originally intended to be just a neutral noticeboard, so the anonymity was the intention. I agree it's fairly confusing at times, so I would support either.
  • For modifying instructions, I encourage you to do the changes you recommended, so people will have a better idea on your suggestions.

AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 22:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• I too support tags, and as many different kinds as are useful. This makes it quicker and easier to report back the alert status without having to compose original text. Of course, one can add optional text following the tag.
For symbols art, I like the idea of including emotional condition tags, say, orange thermometer (heated), red thermometer (angry); bursting firecracker (admin intervention needed?), a yellow question mark (not sure/don't know), blue thermometer (chilling out for now), and a white peace dove (alert apparently resolved). The use of symbols is well-known to motivate and facilitate the appropriate actions among those already inclined to help. For example, mediators who doubt the wisdom of becoming involved in a red thermometer dispute, might be more willing to help resolve an orange thermometer incivility when the alerts are pre-classified by symbol.
• The problem of getting a steady supply of mediators is not solved, so I think this page will likely slip back to a backlog even with all the good access and style improvements AQu01rius and Parzival418 have made. Self-fulfilling prophecy might become another problem. How about further softening the tone of the possible-closure notice to say that editors here have made improvements, but there are still significant problems to be solved?
  • To implement my admin-practice suggestion (described in the #Wikiquette alerts is or should be... section above): At Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, add a section suggesting that those who are interested in applying for adminship should first demonstrate their issue judgment and human relationship skills by mediating cases at Wikiquette alerts. I think these should be multiple interactions rather than a single opinion post.
  • Another possibility is to ask W-alerts-requesting posters to "pay" for their alert by examining and posting an opinion on someone else's alert. This approach is similar to the concept of group therapy. Requesters could be asked to do two things: go to a newly alerted page and "take the temperature" without posting there, but post a current thermometer tag under the alert back here (multiple tags should help to track volatile situations). Then the requester should choose a different alert already tagged, examine the situation and post a single opinion there.
I'm not clear as to why Iamunknown objects to "clerks", though this page could use clerking to solve some of the routine problems Parzival418 mentions. For example, maybe it would be better if regular clerk-like editors went to the alerted page and "took the temperature". With temperature tags already placed, editors arriving to write their own alert would be more encouraged to help another alert that they felt competent to comment.
  • Still another idea is to persuade The Wikipedia community to consense a section under that heading in the Help:Contents pages, say called, "Giving help", which would describe mediating at Wikiquette alerts.
  • As an indirect way of asking other editors to help solve the problem (of indefinitely obtaining a steady stream of mediators), write an article about the problem for publication in the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. In the article, mention Wikipedia institutional research of the rising user population and the proportionally lagging appointments of admins — link to the graph of this (that I first saw on some admin's page, but I forget who).
• I'd say keep pseudoanonymity available for anyone who posts to this page, but warn all posters that anyone can determine who posted anything by examining the page history. Why would you want to bias yourself as a mediator by being forced to know in advance who posted the complaint? First, go look without knowing. My further reasoning is that occasional cached versions of this page will appear on the internet, as well as in Wikipedia searches. This page is about encouraging good manners, and it's both good manners and traditional to mask names when seeking help in a public forums such as newspaper advice columns. By contrast, real-world justice systems including civil cases, authorize the publishing of names in newspapers — which by analogy is more like AN/I and other formal incident noticeboards.
(wrote this during a section edit session without seeing the new section below)
Milo 08:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
That's a good point, you may be right. The main reason I thought it better to include the names is that when I tried to review some of the reports that had been entered without the user names I found it confusing and hard to unravel the stories - especially because they wren't really written as if they were an anonymous third-party report, the editors wrote the same way they would write if they signed their names, so often they would mention the names of the other users but not their own. That made it hard to decide how to respond, ie, how to phrase the response - ie, who are we talking to?
I don't feel strongly about this, if people using this page prefer to keep it without the user names, that's Ok with me. But if we go that route, maybe we should include an instruction about not naming the other users invovled also and let the talk pages and edit histories stand for themselves.
Mostly though, I come back to the idea of including the signatures, because although this page is aboute polite as you said, it seems like most users come here to complain about particular interactions or patterns of interactions with certain other editors. --- ??? --Parzival418 17:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
"when I tried to review some of the reports that had been entered without the user names I found it confusing "After my initial unbiased look at the situation, if I as the mediator got confused by not knowing who had posted the alert, I'd just check the page history.
"they would mention the names of the other users but not their own. " The original instruction was "Do not sign your comment and do not use names. " I prefer that instruction, but until and unless a username-erasing bot is available, how about an instruction that either everyone must be mentioned pseudoanonymously, or, if you mention other users by username, you must sign the post normally? That at least provides name search parity, and isn't any more difficult to enforce than normal unsigned posts. If this naming of names becomes noticeably abusive, which could happen, then there is an option of just deleting alerts that mention names, leaving an instruction to repost the alert without them. Milo 00:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The thing that was confusing to me was not finding who posted the report with the history, that's no problem. The confusing part was the sort of random switching between naming the parties and not, as you also noted, making the stories themselves hard to parse.
"how about an instruction that either everyone must be mentioned pseudoanonymously, or, if you mention other users by username, you must sign the post normally? " -- that seems like a good solution. It would allow both kinds of reports but keep them self-consistent. Since this is an informal notice board, it may be best to allow for both options, unlike the formal procedures that have detailed steps that must be followed. This notice board fits in the "niche" of a reporting forum that retains some casualness so it's not too daunting or work-intensive. The naming issue does need to be balanced though, either names for all, or names for none.
" If this naming of names becomes noticeably abusive, which could happen, then there is an option of just deleting alerts that mention names, leaving an instruction to repost the alert without them." -- yes, just so.
If you want to go ahead and make that change to the instructions, that would be fine with me.

(outdenting and continuing) I'm adding a new comment here even this is being written after the sub-section following, to keep this part of the conversation together. When I replied to your previous note, I didn't see the first part of it at the top, so this new reply addresses your initial comments.

Regarding the self-fulfilling prophecy of the close-box, I think that's been addressed OK now that I moved it to the talk page. If you want to soften the wording further, I don't mind at all. I'd even prefer for someone to simply remove the box, since none of the editors who expressed desire for this page to be deleted have been participating in the recent discussions. If they felt strongly about removing this page, it seems like we would have heard something from them by now. I figure since I've been so active here for a few days, I'll wait a while before I'd remove the box myself.

I like your description of the larger view of how this page can fit into the various Wikiprocesses and its function in the community, including ways of attracting and motivating editors to help. I particularly like these several points (described more fully in your comments above):

  • "add a section suggesting that those who are interested in applying for adminship should first demonstrate their issue judgment and human relationship skills by mediating cases at Wikiquette alerts."
  • "a section under that heading in the Help:Contents pages, say called, "Giving help", which would describe mediating at Wikiquette alerts. "
  • "maybe it would be better if regular clerk-like editors went to the alerted page and "took the temperature". With temperature tags already placed, editors arriving to write their own alert would be more encouraged to help another alert that they felt competent to comment. "
  • "ask W-alerts-requesting posters to "pay" for their alert by examining and posting an opinion on someone else's alert. "

If you or any other editor would like to write up any of the above ideas, I would support their inclusion in the instructions for the relevant points.

I strongly support your suggestions about how this page can be included in the "path to adminship" idea... What I like about that idea is three-fold - it brings mediators to this forum to help handle reports; it enhances the value and usefulness of this page, filling the needed niche in the dispute resolution, and it offers prospective administrators a valuable forum for developing skills they will need, on a social level, prior to attaining their new powers. I'm not sure where that would need to be discussed, and I know nothing about the rules regarding non-admins editing the request for adminship process pages. If you decide to follow-through on that, please inform me of where you discuss it, and I'll show up.

The Signpost article could be effective in the short-term, but I wonder if the effort to write it might not bear enough fruit, unless perhaps it also was made into a Wikiguide "essay" that could be retained somewhere in the help system or the dispute resolution guides.

Here's another thought: On the main page there is a request for Mediators for the Mediation Cabal. Perhaps we could fit a note there for mediators to visit here as well.

Regarding the tags - I started with a simple set just to know if something still needs attention. I made those before I had read your idea about using tags for "taking the temperature" of an issue so we can have an idea here of what's happening on the discussion pages. That's cool idea for use of tags. I don't have time to make more tags right now though, or to write up the instructions for using them. I wonder if there are some already used on other pages we could "borrow." --Parzival418 02:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[technical note: if anyone wants to edit the header or the instructions for the main page, they are found on a transcluded subpage at: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/Beginning. I didn't set it up that way, someone else did and I just made edits there when I changed the header box. I also moved the shortcut box and dispute resolution infobox to the subpage. I guess it's a good idea to keep it like that so users visiting to enter reports don't edit the wrong section and change the heeaders unintentionally.] --Parzival418 02:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You've done a lot of good work here. The Mediation cabal notice seems good to do too. You may be correct about the limited utility of the Signpost article. All the technical things like tags and instructions need to be finished before promoting at the suggested pages. It's not wise to show unfinished work, even at Wikipedia. I agree about the box, but it's probably more politic to gradually soften it in proportion to the amount of work left to do. I have a nearly full plate in the real world right now, so maybe these items will have to wait. Milo 04:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

procedure instructions updated; status tags implemented

OK, I've made some changes. Seems much better now, easier to see what needs attention,and easier for users to understand what the page is for. Comments welcome. --Parzival418 05:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks great! AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 06:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently we had a cross-posting happening while I was implemented the tags. After further discussion, it seems we may need some more tags. I'm heading back up to the previous section to post further replies, just wanted to refer to that here since it's out of chronological posting sequence. --Parzival418 01:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Equally named or equally pseudoanonymous alerts

I really don't see why we need to sign with four tildes. The old instructions said sign with five. Tuxide 02:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The reason I changed it is that after helping to resolve several of the postings, I was finding it challenging to understand some of the reports due to inconsistent use. Some users were posting without signing their names, yet they were discussing other users while mentioning their names, so it just was not balanced. Also, it took extra time and work to find the participants to communicate with them. The reports are not really anonymous anyway because the name of the user can be found in the page history. By including the names in the postings, it makes it easier to research the situation and contact the people involved, without having to search through page histories to find them.
It's not set in stone of course. There is discussion about this in the section above, with some ideas for alternate ways of wording the instructions. Please review the discussion in the preceeding section and see if you like some of the ideas we came up with. Your further comments are welcome. Thanks. --Parzival418 03:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tuxide,
The issue is equality of username pseudoanonymity to search engines and eyeballs. It's not fair to expose usernames of those about whom one is complaining, without also openly signing one's own name with 4 tildes. In Wikipedia's almost totally open environment, pseudoanonymity is not mandatory, but it is a meaningful and useful form of social courtesy for those who wish to extend it to others.
I understand why it's frequently within reason to name names non-anonymously. When I tried to strictly follow the previous pseudoanonymous (5 tildes) instructions, I described my dispute like: Editor A did this and that to Editor B, then Editor B responded by doing other stuff to Editor A, and so on. That's very hard to follow if one is being asked to comment on the dispute. Editors won't be as willing to comment if it takes too long to figure out what's happening.
On the other hand, some situations call for seeking help while making as little username noise as possible. Also, some editors desire more dispute privacy than do others, perhaps not wishing to embarrass another editor with whom one has only a minor dispute.
For these reasons I have proposed that editors making alerts can choose either the previous pseudoanonymity with 5 tildes, which prints just the date, but if so they must username no one else in describing the dispute on the W-alerts page. Alternatively, they can write usernames to describe the dispute, but if doing so, they must sign the alert with the normal 4 tildes, which prints name and date. Editors who name names but don't sign, can be 'outed' by anyone in the familiar manner of the unsigned post template.
Because it's so easy for hotheads to become abusive with names, I propose a Wikiguide, that if naming of names exceeds the slack necessary to fairly describe the dispute, then there should be an option for uninvolved editors to delete such alerts. But the deleter must leave a note with a signature politely explaining why the delete, plus an invitation to repost the same alert without using names. I hope this Wikiguide proposal is fair even to well-meaning hotheads that need uninvolved editors' comments on their dispute. Milo 23:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

a problem, a suggestion, and a summary

I've been doing a lot of work here and I feel it's been helpful but I'm not going to be able to continue at the same level. I hope there's enough support so the page can continue; I believe it's a valuable element of dispute resolution, defusing conflict and helping users learn better ways of interacting. It's been improved and revitalized over the week or so, but other than some comments here on the talk page, I've been the only one responding to the alerts and there's no way I can keep that up. Also, a new problem came up with a recent alert that has soured me on staying involved unless some new safeguards are put in place. So, here's a note about what happened, a quick summary of the page status (as I see it), and an idea for how that kind of thing can be avoided in the future.

First a note about the recent report that caused hassles for me. There's no lasting damage, but it was very annoying, wasted a bunch of my time, and reduced my enthusiasm for helping out here unless there can be more support as I will mention.

The issue I am referring to is documented at these links:


→ Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Edit War Brewing on DeVry University
→ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Soapboxing, possible disruption, possible deletion required
→ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive?
→ Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 8#DeVry University
→ Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#DeVry University
→ Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Request for editors for the DeVry article
→ Summary at WP:COIN - COI SPAs DiogenesRex and Codeplowed

re: pages and users


It started out well enough; the poster of the report had also posted an RfC so several editors showed up at the page and it started to improve quite well. Then the disruptive editor became agressive, removed talk page headers, edited the talk page comments of other users, re-posted sectons of the talk page that had been archived, accused editors of "hiding" comments in the archives (the archives were done carefully, nothing was hidden); When I and other editors responded with warnings for him to stop, he vandalized several user pages, including mine.

I made note of those events on the Wikiquette report and other editors added notes too. Then one of the editors who had arrived from the RfC posted a complaint at WP:ANI and after a while, another editor posted a second complaint there. So I posted some comments on those reports, but no administrator attention resulted. I decided this was not my fight and withdrew, though I still had to revert some vandalism on my user page (that has since subsided, hopefully it will not resume).

It now seems the disruptive editor might have sock puppet (or at least a friend who also writes similar rambling essays I don't understand and also signs his posts in Latin). This second account posted the COIN report linked above. That report got a bit of attention but was clearly not taken seriously. I wrote some comments there with some of what I'm explaining here. But I don't have time to accumulate detailed diffs and really mount a campaign to stop the disruptive editor. It's not a page I was editing, I was just involved in this to help out. I have no desire to be the guy in the bar brawl who gets punched while trying to stop a fight between two other guys.

So now, I've backed away from the conflict and my user pages are (for now) not being vandalized. But the mess in the talk page of the article is continuing - reversion wars, strange essays, editing of others' comments, removing of talk page templates (and others putting them back again), etc... I'm staying out of it. So the result of the Wikiquette posting and the original RfC is that several editors including me tried to help with the page, the page is improved, but the disruptive behavior has not been curbed and some editors who came to help have had vandalism on their pages and are still digging out of the mess. I don't know why the emotions are so high on that article, but they are, and it needs an administrator to help calm the situation. I've posted that request in a couple places, but as I said, I'm not up for collecting evidence so I doubt there will be any help forthcoming from those requests since they don't have all the diffs neatly organized.

The result of all this is that I am now much less interested in responding to Wikiquette alert reports. The few positive experiences were not worth the trouble of this one.

However... that experience brought me to an idea for how regular editors could help with these reports without getting stuck in that kind of problem. Clearly, all the administrator notice boards are overloaded and there's no way administrators can take the time to patrol Wkiquette alerts. But regular editors don't have the power to protect themselves from problems that can result from intereacting with problem users - other than going to the noticeboards and filing reports, time consuming and then just part of the backed up admin workload. Maybe ordinary editors could continue to handle this page, but with a support system, a backup plan,... perhaps a few administrators could be available to consult, or step in when a situation gets too much for a non-admin editor. For example in the above situation when the user page vandalism started, if I had been able to request help from an administrator who had agreed in advance to be a support person for this page, the escalation of the problem could have been avoided, saving all those multiple notice board posts and back and forth conversations. I'm not sure how this would be set up, but I'm sure there's a way it can work.

If we don't have some kind of backup like that, it may be difficult to keep editors interested in responding to reports on this page.

We could combine this idea with Milo's suggestion of using this page as a sort of training ground for prospective administrators, in which case it would probably be a good idea for them to establish relationships with existing administrators anyway.

In summary the issues we have dangling here are:

  • access to administrator backup support for editors responding to Wikiquette reports, for incidents that need it
  • how to attract more editors to help with reports (thanks to Milo for these ideas)
-- make it an (optional) part of the path to adminship?
-- request users helped by this page to return the favor and help others
-- add requests to related project pages for editors to help out (ie, post requests on talk pages of Third opinion, Editor Assistance, etc
-- other?
  • resolve the signed names vs pseudo-anonyumity question
  • clarify the "mission" of the page
  • list the page where users who need it can find it
  • develop an archiving schedule and system

After my recent experience with the user page vandalism and the multiple reports on noticeboards from one incident where I tried to help, I feel the first item in the list above is crucial to smooth functioning of this page.

I'll still participate in this discussion, and I may respond to a report now and then, but I'm not able to continue doing as much as I have been for this page. I have articles to edit that have been on hold while I've worked on this, and they need my attention.

So I invite further conversation here. If editors here gain consensus for focusing the approach, maybe we can find some administrators who would be willing to support the page, making this a better part of the process without adding burden to the admin boards. I think if WQA were not here at all, many of those reports might end up on ANI or one of the others anyway. --Parzival418 08:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The improved/proposed Wikiquette alerts process seems to have unfinished-work bugs which you found the hard way. A difficult situation, but I think it was useful as a case study of unsuitability for Wikiquette alerts visiting-editor comments.
Your priority of a need for backup admin help is impacted by this graph of admin appointments lagging users and edits: page down to English Wikipedia - Admins, Articles, Users, Edits. This graph is part of the collection at User:NoSeptember/The NoSeptember Admin Project. If backup admin help is not reliably available here, does the page collapse? I'm inclined to think that Wikiquette alerts needs to focus on what it can do, not what it can't do, and that respect for that limit needs to be stated in the page mission.
What happened to you was an example of the reason that I suggested use of emotional temperature condition tags, both prior to a first Wikiquette comment, and during the process thereafter.
I know the actual tag images aren't constructed, but for training purposes maybe it would be helpful if you could annotate the stages of the process above with the tag colors I proposed in section talk:Wikiquette_alerts#Improving_the_function_of_the_page, "orange thermometer (heated), red thermometer (angry); bursting firecracker (admin intervention needed?), a yellow question mark (not sure/don't know), blue thermometer (chilling out for now), and a white peace dove (alert apparently resolved)." With reference to this key, you could mark them for now like [orange], [red], [firecracker], [yellow], [blue], [white].
You said things were going ok for a while, so maybe add a green thermometer (in process) tag, for now as [green].
Your experience makes it clear that Wikiquette alerts needs instructions on how to decide and tag a bursting firecracker condition. In other words, at what point does a merely angry [red thermometer] condition, cross over the line into behavior that calls for Wikiquette alert editors to withdraw, post the [bursting firecracker] tag here, and optionally post to AN/I, or suggest that someone else uninvolved should do so? I think a Firecracker checklist would work well for this purpose, which in turn suggests a checklist for calibrating the other thermometer colors as well. (Technically the set of thermometers with checklists form a metaphysical scale of psychology).
Seems to me that the point at which your user page was misused, things had already crossed the line. Maybe your user page was not literally vandalized, due to the disruptive editor's misunderstanding of the difference between user and talk pages. Also he seemed to lacked the technical skill to figure out with whom he was having a conflict, and arbitrarily decided it was you. All those rambling, aggressive "last warning" postings and repostings had the look of a clueless user who either didn't understand or couldn't write English very well. He was also confused about who had authority to do what at Wikipedia. Not sure because I haven't done a thorough analysis, but my sense he is a student, maybe ESL, maybe as young as middle school, maybe having real-world social behavior and authority issues.
Maybe this was a bad situation for English communication on which Wikiquette depends, and I think that point should not be overlooked in the instructions.
You were there — in retrospect, at what behavior point would you draw the line? Milo 03:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
[adding this note after I wrote the following comments... it's late and I've had a long day. I see some spelling goofs and funny grammer in what I wrote, but I'm not up for fixing it right now, so here it is anyway...]
I like your temperature and firecracker checklist idea. I'll use those terms in my response here. "If backup admin help is not reliably available here, does the page collapse? I'm inclined to think that Wikiquette alerts needs to focus on what it can do, not what it can't do, and that respect for that limit needs to be stated in the page mission." - Those graphs of the lagging admin appointments are illuminating. I agree this page will need to function without much admin attention. But without any admin backup at all, the problem is this: when something goes over the line and needs administrative action, it can take a lot of time to format evidence and diffs and present it at the noticeboards, and even then it may not be addressed in a timely way. Maybe that cold be helped by a policy statement one of the notice boards, perhaps WP:AN since that one has less backlog, such that editors postsing there who state that they are referring a report from WP:WQA would get quicker attention than new reports - with the rationale that the report had already gone through multiple steps at WQA with least one and perhaps more uninvolved editors trying to help. So when the admins are scanning the AN reports, if they see one that says - "this report is being escalated from WQA, we need help" - that report would be assigned a "higher temperature" to use your analogy. I don't know if the admins would be willing to consider this, but if they would, it could be a big help to this page. The idea would be this page functions on its own, but if something goes beyond our ability to handle it, we have a place to take it where we won't just go on the back burner.
In the case I just went through, several reports were filed by the involved editors (not by me) but those reports were pretty much ignored - partly because they were not clearly presented, but also because the boards are backed up. Those reports are still there, with no attention, and the problem is continuing full steam ahead. I'm staying out of it because it was just too "hot" for me. If that were a page I was involved in editing, I would not let it stand and I would find a way to solve it - it does need admin attention. But as a Wikiquette "helper", it's not worth the burden on my time to go and fight that battle, so that means for this situation , this page has failed.
"at what point does a merely angry [red thermometer] condition, cross over the line into behavior that calls for Wikiquette alert editors to withdraw, post the [bursting firecracker] tag here, and optionally post to AN/I, or suggest that someone else uninvolved should do so? "Apparently that will happen sometimes, that this page can't handle a particular issue and escalation might be needed. There are other pages with ordinary editors helping with mediation or editor assistance, etc, but this page in particular I think is vulnerable to problems because part of its stated purpose is to help with civility issues. That means it's likely the temperature is already somewhat elevated before we even start. The problem with resorting to a post at AN/I though is that for those reports, the already burdened editor who is just trying to help out now would need to format something formal and then just wait and hope it's noticed. There should be some way of getting those reports to stand out from the crowd, since they would be a result of an earlier process that already had tried to resolve it - that's different than a new issue being reported by one of the involved parties. In a way, the escalated reports from WQA should require less documentaton, in that there would already be information at WQA that could be reviewed, and further - it seems to me that while editors helping out at WQA are not admins, there should be some additional consideration in the reading of their ANI or AN reports that they are reporting based on their helping-work, making the report they bring different than a regular report of a dispute by involved editors. I think I'm repeating myself here, moving on...
So, what can we do when a dispute gets overheated, if we don't have a formalized admin backup method? Another thing that would help is if we had a group of editors working on this page at any one time. I was the only one in that situation, so when it became a problem, the attention was focused on me. If I had know of a few more editors also working this page, I could have requested their help and there would have been multiple voices telling the bad guy to stop. He might have hassled all of us, but at least his energy would have been divided, and he might have gotten the idea that it was not one person hounding him. I doubt it though, this particular disruptive editor has other problems (I'll reply about your notes on that in a moment). But even so, if there had been others from this page there with me, when it started to go bad, it would have been a lot easier to document the situation because it wouldn't have been just up to one person to find all the diffs, and also because the one editor's bad behavior would have been towards more editors, making it a more clear situation once the formal reports were filed.
That may be the biggest problem, the lack of editors helping on the page. I've learned a lot from working on various reports over the last week. But it's been too much work for me on my own, and since I got involved with this page, I don't think anyone else has jumped in and helped. There was one other editor who came to the DeVry incident through RFC, and his presence was valuable. He's done more than I have and - he's still working on it! Ifnot for his presence, I would have withdrawn from the incident sooner; and, he's the one who posted the two ANI reports. I added comments, no administrators have responded to the reports, thought they became part of the summarized report at COIN. And that's where it remains. A nicely summarized report about what a helpful editor at COIN called "aggressive COI SPAs". But COIN has a backlog too, so no help has come and if you look at the DeVry talk page today, you'll see the mess is continuing.
I like the thermometer idea, and I like the idea of letting this page be what it is and knowing when to back off, however... Unless we can find a way to have more editors repsonding here, and addressing some of the other issues we've been discussing, it seems to me we hav a page that can only handle the easy stuff, and as soon as it gets hard we have to say - no, too much for us, we refer you to ANI or AIV or RFC/U. That's not much of a mandate though. The problem is that for us to help for a while here and then refer to other procedures, the users ahve to start over again in the new forum. For us to go and help make those further reports is just too much work (unless we have the priority flag for referring from an active helping page, or an admin support club we could call on). I don't mean to say this page is worthless without the backup but it does seem that without that we may need to have a clear boundary (on a personal leverl, per editor) that when it goes too far, just bail and put up the stuck templatge, plus maybe a popping firecracker.
"Seems to me that the point at which your user page was misused, things had already crossed the line." Yes, that's correct. But it happened very fast. At first my comments on the talk page were well received by some of the users there, they asked for help archiving, so I set up the archive pages and templates; they asked for help focusing the discussion and they asked for help convincing the rougue editor from editing their talkpage comments. When I placed basic talk page templates, those were immediately reverted and the accusations began. After seeing the disruptive editor change comments of others a few times, I posted a warning on his page. That's when he got agressive and started accusing me of trying to change what he was saying.
"Maybe your user page was not literally vandalized, due to the disruptive editor's misunderstanding of the difference between user and talk pages. Also he seemed to lacked the technical skill to figure out with whom he was having a conflict, and arbitrarily decided it was you. All those rambling, aggressive "last warning" postings and repostings had the look of a clueless user who either didn't understand or couldn't write English very well." OK, maybe vandalism is the wrong word, but certainly disruption. I do think this is not a native speaker of English, but I don't agree with your guess that he may be a school kid. I don't want to get into analyzing his psychology here, it's off-topic, but there is a lot in his writing to indicate he's an adult. And I do agree with you he's confused about WP process and about authority issues in general. However, his behavior was not simply confused it was also aggressive, and he has an agenda, with his history focused almost completely on that one article, and a possible sockpuppet who writes in the same strange dialect and also signs with a Latin name. There was a one-two post on my talk page where he asked me a question and then after I replied, he replied from the other account. So while he may be confused and not speak English well, that does not temper his agression or his agenda.
"You were there — in retrospect, at what behavior point would you draw the line?" I did draw the line. When the disruptive user started posting nonsense warnings on my user pages, it became clear that he was not able or not willing to understand or converse. I was not interested in fighting that kind of disruption without "backup", on an article where I jsut showed up to help with an alert. I like helping when I can, but not setting myself up as a scarecrow. When I saw how much time would be needed to maintain the discussion on the talk page, manage a report on an admin notice board, while meanwhile defending my user and talk pages from warnings and diatribes (I'll not call it vandalism for now), I backed off. And since I have, my pages are peaceful again. So, in that sense, the Wikiquette page did not work this time. If there were an escalation process that would expedite reports from Wikiquette page helpers, I would use it. But to take my time and get deeply involved in reports that have no special attention from admins who can effect corrections where needed, that's beyond my selflessness-threshold. So, to answer your question, that's where I draw the line. Now that I've been through it once, I would see that coming up even sooner.
I feel bad about that though, because I still believe WQA is a missing peice of the puzzle and without it lots of minor incidents that could be helped easily will end up either chasing away newbies, letting articles be controlled by aggression, or moving on to overload the admin noticeboards even more.
Seems to me we need: more editors helping here, the thermometer system implemented, and an accepted route for getting admin attention, perhaps something as simple as posting to WP:AN when help is needed and consensus from the admins who watch that board that WQA forwarded reports get reviewed a bit quicker since they would not be forwarded there unless previous processes had not already gotten stuck. I wonder if a mention of this on the talk page for WP:AN might be valuable...? I wouldn't do that on my own, but if you or others here agree with that idea, I'd be willing to bring it up in that forum. Another option might be to post a request on that talk page for admins who may be interested in this to come here and discuss.
Or, maybe you're right that we need to come up with ways of managing this page without admin involvement. If so, I think we'll need to acknowledge in advance there will be a limit to what we can do and we won't always be able to handle the creation of escalated reports for the users who need them, other than to refer them to the other forums. --Parzival418 07:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

update

Regarding the incident report listed above, it turns out the disruptive users are sockpuppets, this was confirmed by checkuer at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Codeplowed. Situation not resolved yet, but at least there's some progress. --Parzival418 Hello 23:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to report the result of this a couple months ago. The sockpuppets were blocked, he continued disruption, then his main account was blocked for a month, starting in early May. Since then he has not returned. --Parzival418 Hello 22:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

editors needed to respond to alerts

Regarding seeking more editors to help with this page, I've communicated with the user who maintains the list bot sections of Community Portal. He has added "Respond to a Wikiquette alert" to the Things to Do section as the third item in the list. Hopefully that will attract some more editors to help out.

I also added that request to the main article here; plus per Milo's suggestion above, in the instructions to users submitting reports.

If anyone reading this hasn't responded to an alert recently, you're invited, please help! There are a couple of open items listed as of yesterday that I am not able to get to... --Parzival418 Hello 23:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

taking a break from this page

It was good to see a couple responses from other editors on the main page in the last couple days. But it's not consistent, and frustrating to see the reports going unanswered, so I'm removing this page from my watchlist for a while. I archived the closed reports from most of April today and the page is looking pretty good. I hope the people reporting find the help they're seeking.

If anything new develops here and you'd like my input, please leave a message for me on my talk page. --Parzival418 Hello 06:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, my break didn't last so long as I 've already returned and helped with more alerts. But time contrstaints won't allow me to do as many as I have, so I hope others join in as well. I've refactored the main heading box on the page to include an additional request for Editors to respond to alerts. --Parzival418 Hello 20:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiquette_assistance/Archive_1&oldid=1137356629"