Wikipedia talk:Wikiquette assistance/Archive 2

message: Hi - I noticed the bot did some archiving tonight, and it seemed to work just right.  Thanks for helping with that, we have a much better system now.
One thing I found was that the archive template header on the new Archive page was wrong.  The regular one produces a box that says to take any new comments to the talk page.  When I reorganized the archiving process the first time, without the bot, I got someone to help me make a new template for the archive pages that refers to the main page instead of the talk page for posting new alerts.  So this is the one we should use at the top of each archive page:

I changed that tonight on Archive 16, I hope it doesn't bother the bot.  I guess the bot will insert the regular one again next time it makes a new page.  It's not a big deal, but it's a bit strange if the main page archive directs tot he talk page.  
Anyway, aside from that, it was cool seeing the bot handle the archive, thanks again!  --Parzival418 Hello 09:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that seems to be working fine, a good effort all round :) Just to pick up on the issue of the transcluded archive pages, it takes my underpowered PC about 12s to load and display Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/Archive/2007 - is that the same for users with a better setup? sbandrews (t) 09:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's faster than that on my Macbook, but slower than a regular Wikipage. The trade off is that in exchange for the load time, you can search through the whole year at once instead of loading a bunch of archives if you're trying to find a particular alert.  I think for now it's OK - if it bogs down more as the year goes on we can change it.  Could be your network that's slowing it, it's all text so the computer's not working hard to render it the page.  --Parzival418 Hello 09:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't want to load the whole year 2007 at one time you can just load an individual archive file, for example Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive15 or 16. On my G4 Powerbook (4 years old) it takes about 6 seconds to load the whole year (to date) 2007. EdJohnston 17:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea - added an index to the archive box to do just that :) sbandrews (t) 21:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: congratulations, we have lift-off

message: Essentially all the   noticeboards and pages with a similar function now have newest items at the bottom--I suggest that this one be changed to match for consistency--its a nuisance having to check for each new thing that you're in the right place. DGG (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it is set up that way--fooled by a few people making errors at the top. As is obvious, i dont come here as often as I should.DGG (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Items at the end 

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

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

message: I even tried adding __newsectionlink__ and it didn't work. —Random832 16:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not exactly sure, but it might be better not to have a new section link at the top of the WQA. Users should read the instructions first - sometimes they don't and we get complaints that don't belong, or that we can't make sense of. I've added a link to the instructions though. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no new section tab? 

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

message: Hi, I was wondering if I could help out on th WQA board here. Are there any formal requirements to do so? For the record I'd mention that I have been "reported" here once, but the complaining party was eventually found to be operating four puppet accounts. Thanks. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure :) There is no official signup form. Your contributions are much welcomed.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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

text: Sure indeed; note that the item above, my complaint against Ronz, turned into  an RfC that hasn't been addressed. It may just be too complicated, or too ugly, or insufficiently well-posed. If you can resolve it, it would be something. If you merely try and help, it would be something :-) Pete St.John (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright fellas, I'll go through the earlier cases and gain familiarity with the WQA resolution process. The Ronz case does seem complex; I'll try to understand it and help. Chow! ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I went through the Ronz case and it does seem to be a fairly long drawn out issue. Although I'm yet to understand it fully, at first seems that both sides are trying to do the right thing, but there has been some misunderstanding due to Ronz unwillingness to explain his actions in greater length than is strictly required. I'll try to get more familier with the matter and give my comments thereafter on the RfC ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very good analysis. If he would explain himself in greater detail I suspect it would help. I haven't reviewed Peter's case in great detail, but in my case Ronz was wrong most of the time. I think there is one more aspect of this case though that is very difficult to pick up without being involved in the case.  Around the 15th of december, Ronz began targeting Peter and I for our behavior and ignored the egregious behavior of one individual (ScienceApologist) who was subsequently banned for incivility for 72 hours. The two of us were on one side of a contentious issue on the Quackwatch page and ScienceApologist was on the other side. It makes it appear as Ronz is being bias in his use of warnings. Anthon01 (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a little historical (hysterical?) perspective on this: User:Ronz has appeared at least three separate times on the WQA board in the last year, since I've started watching WQAs myself.  He's been the subject of many complaints in the past - I stopped paying attention to the cases he's been involved in just because the arguments get so heated.  Makes me wonder, though, how long people have to put up with incivility before more drastic action is taken... :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 07:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ronz edits articles that are often disputed. Civility problems crop up more often in such articles. Drastic action is determined by the quality, not quantity, of incivility (if you'll allow me to abuse the word "quality" for a moment). --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would seem that only "excessive quality" (to coin an oxymoron!) motivates action, and not excessive quantity. I'm trying to do something about that. I do not believe that endless repetition of stealthily wikilegalistic sophistry should be defaulty and reliably tolerated. I don't care about any one miscreant, particularly, there are zillions, but dealing with one is entre'  for clarifying the relevant policies and finding allies. Maybe we need a new policy WP:SOPHISTRY. There's a lot of work to do, but no, I can't accept that Ronz's behaviour is permissible. Pete St.John (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree. Sophistry and miscreancy are subjective, and honestly, Ronz isn't a bad contributor, he just butts heads with people (I've seen several of the other parties in WQA complaints too, Pete, this isn't a one way street here). I mean, look at his dispute with wikieditor9999. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:   You don't use a spam filter? You can't seriously want me to treat you the way he did me (not since I've given up on the article we were fighting over; he got what he wanted). If you would like me to emulate him, and you volunteer to prove by example that it's just hunky-dorey by you, I'll do it. I think I could script an emulator over a weekend, and you would not be able to tell the difference between the markhov-chained material from the original. Yes Ronz is bad. And no, I can't prove it by emulation, that was rhetorical; you'd merely feel it, which has no enforcement value. Ronz is unapolgetic spam. Pete St.John (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Spam? --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm looking for a policy for sophistry in this sense, actually. But what I was refering to by "spam" is this: Ronz and I debated on talk pages (as per WP:TALK). The insults and innuendo escalated (and let's say partly my fault) to the point of my exapseration. So I refused to talk with him any more. He then persisted in posting to my talk that I wasn't responding to him, and since has cited WP:TALK as the excuse for why he has to post on my talk page. But that is exactly not what Wp:Talk says. We are supposed to try and resolve differences that way. We did, and I gave it up. Since then, what I've called "spam" others would call incivility. Incessant, unabashed incivility. Pete St.John (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay well this was an exercise in someone looking over a previous complaint to get used to the WQA. This is not the place for you to lodge complaints against Ronz. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually it is, this is Wikiquette Alerts, a place to lodge complaints, correct? At the insistence of others it's moved to an RfC, which is getting ignored (understandably). A user asked to help, and so I invited him to help at the RFC. You then defended Ronz (why? if this isn't the place?) by denying that his conduct is not actionable, as mere quantity and not quality. I rebutted that. Indeed, the place for it is the RFC. It's not clear to me why you defend Ronz everywhere but the RfC. Pete St.John (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just a short comment. I have the impression that this is mainly an extreme clash of personalities between the two of you. (And I think I could easily get into the same situation with Ronz.) The most important thing is probably that both of you cool down. There were some encouraging signs from Ronz in that direction, and now according to his user page he is on a wikibreak. So the best thing is probably to let matters rest for now, calm down, and be optimistic. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Slow down there Pete, this is a talk page! Please read the beginning of this conversation. RP was just going over an archived incident to see how things work. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  We are no longer addressing ReluctantPhilosopher, he replied above (and, thanks). I'm replying, here, to the defenses to Ronz posted here: e.g. Hans Adler, that it's just a personality clash and there is nothing actionable; and Cheeser1, that it's a matter of degree and matters of degree are not actionable. I'm more than happy to drop it here: it should be at the RfC. If you post your reasons why my RfC is spurious, at the RfC, then you save other editors the trouble; also of course I can rebut them where other editors can read them. We all win, right? So let's take it there, I'm with you wholeheartedly on leaving off this item of ReluctantPhilosopher's. Pete St.John (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wish to help 

message: User:Theaveng‎ had consistently edit the page Tifa Lockhart‎ by adding information that she got large breast eventhough it is against the consensus from the discussion on the talk page.  The information was removed and re-added for a few times by other users and I stepped in and said no source, no inclusion on the edit summary.  He came back to remove info on the hair and eye colour stating that it is not sourced.  I placed an official source there and he used that source to place the large breast info in again saying thank you for providing a source.  Since it is not in the source, I removed it stating so, yet he keep coming back and reverting the page.  At his 4th revert, he warned me of reporting me as violating the WP:3RR rule.  Since it is his 4th revert and it is just faking the source to contain his own speculation, I place a 3rr warning tag as well as a Addition of unsourced material without proper citations tag level 1 on his page.  Someone else reverted his edit clearly stating the source does not contain what he has stated.  Another user joking did a self revert on the page asking for a source about the gender of the character.  I noticed this and place a source for that part(eventhough it was no longer needed) and self-reverted it since it sounds plain stupid to have a source tagging right next to the gender.  User:Theaveng‎ came back, started doing a lot of edits on the page, which basically removed some other speculation so I did nothing about that, yet he then placed a 3RR warning on my talk page without signing the post.  Since I did not revert over 3 times, and all of my reverts are purely removing disputed material by consensus, this tag is incorrect and I have removed it as well as placing a tempabuse tag on his page as well as reminding him to sign his post on talk pages and said at most he can do is tag me with a selfrevert warning(which I know I did).  He removed all of the warning and notice tags on his page quoting incorrect use of warning.  Since all of those are valid warnings, I revert that and thinking that someone from the admin should know about it and try to over watch this incident.  Since it is mainly a problem of communication, I came here, what should I do? MythSearchertalk 10:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Blatantly violating consensus to add information about large breasts is, as far as I'm concerned, childish vandalism. Next time he starts edit-warring by inserting that content, give him a level 4 vandalism warning. If he does it once more, report him to the WP:AIV. At least, that's my take. --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the other user reverted the page on him(or maybe due to the warnings I gave him), it seems like all he is doing now is WP:ABF and trying to remove things that is unsourced(no matter how common sense it is) and is still within normal editing interest other than abusing warning tags and removing warning tags on his own page. MythSearchertalk 13:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you mean WP:POINT, not WP:ABF (that is a joke page...). I have left a warning, although I don't know what good it will do. --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean ABF, s/he left a comment in the talk page stating those who remove his edits are censoring wikipedia and s/he used other sources to try to fake his/her info is sourced, s/he at least did 3 things the ABF page listed and thus I used it as a reference of what he is doing. :P  Of course s/he is making a point campaign, too. MythSearchertalk 15:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, Theaveng is another name that has come up in the past for me.  I asked him to stop using edit summaries to discuss content issues in the 64-bit article back in November, when he was engaged in a similar edit war.  At the time, he had at least one decent point, but his approach was seriously flawed, IMO. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What should I do with this user? 

message: Let me give you the backstory real quick to understand the problem.
This morning I removed a few confirmed characters from the game Super Smash Bros. Brawl since up to that point I believed the sources were not Wikipedia standard. In any case the user quickly reverted my edits and went more to 4 reverts on that article page. But that is not my problem. My problem is that when I was JUSTIFYING my actions on that talk page he removed my comments. When an Administrator posted as well he REMOVED his comments but after a heads up from the Admin he restored said comments.
Now we had a resolution for that article, as I was in the wrong I cleaned up a portion of the article and another user cleaned up my wording, life goes on.
Then a few hours later when I have made a discussion on the main page of Super Smash Bros. Brawl he yet again brings up my actions from earlier this morning, citing that I was annoyed or mad at the roster. I have shown any signs of that and I have posted multiple times that I wanted it well-source, that was my only concern. On the same talk page for the article he yet again when back from hijacking my discussion to demeaning my character and if I responded in any way/shape or form he removes my statements. This has gone far enough, I am not letting him remove any more of my comments when I defend myself. 
You can see the log here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Smash_Bros._Brawl&action=history
He constantly keeps removing statements and keeps ups his own, despite his frantic screams for 'ITS ON-TOPIC'!--HeaveTheClay (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: arguing over super smash bros? yeah, um.... I'm actually at a loss for insults here. --mitrebox (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DarkFierceDeityLink has a vendetta against me of some kind 

message: Please end the various discussions, stop forum-shopping.  Let this go and let it run its course. See Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: arguing over super smash bros? yeah, um.... I'm actually at a loss for insults here. --mitrebox (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  An RFC has been started over this

message: I'm slightly unclear about the scope of this board. Several users come here to complain about content issues, not exactly breach of wikiquette. Are such issues to be addressed? Thanks. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I mean, it's that simple. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of this board 

message: The procedures say, in part:
*Notify the reported user(s). Place a polite short statement on the user(s) talk page, or on the talk page of the article if several users are involved, to notify them that you have filed an alert here.
I've noticed, however, that in some cases this is counterproductive.  I've had at least one in the past week where the other party was not notified.  I was going to notify him or her, but instead I decided on review of the facts to advise the referring party to just drop the issue and to disengage from the problem editor.  The referring party was very pleased with this advice, but I could tell from the edit histories that if the other editor were notified we were going to have a mess and I might end up as an alternate target of the problem editor's wrath - but that by dropping it, the other editor might just be able to WP:CHILL after awhile.
On the other hand, I've also run into one where editors who were not notified found out (through a simultaneous MedCab request - I closed the WQA as the mediator and mentioned it at the MedCab) and were so offended that they posted warnings and refused mediation.
To some extent it seems the very fact of filing a WQA is upsetting to some, even very experienced editors, maybe especially such editors - because in some cases the very fact someone posts here suggests they are not WP:AGF of the other user, the filing of the WQA suggests that the other user meant to be uncivil.  So that the WQA process in some cases seems to actually be counterproductive as WP:DR.  Wondering if anyone else has any thoughts on this. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think people who get offended when a WQA is filed against them should read WP:AAGF. If the WQA process was an exercise in violating WP:AGF, we wouldn't have it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree, and please note, in my last paragraph above, I wasn't actually espousing those views, I intended to mean that's the impression others have given recently as they came into a WQA steaming mad that it was occurring.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen this go both ways--I think some people who post Alerts here feel that they're "getting someone in trouble" by doing so, and that we're going to hand out blocks or discipline people for them. I've also seen some editors get upset or offended when there's a WQA about them, perhaps because of the above, and perhaps also because of the reasons everyone's already mentioned. DanielEng (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notification 

message: How do you guys put the warning template on the talk pages of users found to have violated Wikiquette? Thanks. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't one, to the best of my knowledge. WQA is informal and although it's part of the dispute resolution process, the point is to try to work things out and talk to the editors before formal warnings need to be issued, as far as I know. If you're looking for the set of regular templates for user warnings, they're at WP:WARN, but there's nothing there for WQA. Best, DanielEng (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:WARN as an NPA and an AGF template. No WP:CIVIL one though. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the template? 

message: Would anyone object to my closing this particular discussion? The user can't seem to get that it's a content dispute, I'm not seeing any personal attacks and it seems as though it's going to go on and on. Best, DanielEng (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did end up closing this Alert because it appeared that the OP was trying to use it as leverage to get the other editor to delete a section on his Talk Page. I thought it should be closed because it needed to be firmly stopped at that point. DanielEng (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support your closing that thread. It appeared to be quite unproductive, without end in sight. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:MattLewis entry 

message: In light of recent events on WQA--not just one, but a bunch of postings that really shouldn't be here--I'm wondering if it would be worth it to work on creating some more concrete rules for Alerts that are posted here. Hopefully in doing so we can save ourselves time, save the editors who are posting inappropriate Alerts time, and make the page run more smoothly. My suggestions are as follows:
* One forum only. If an issue is already being handled at another forum, such as WP:ANI, it should not be addressed here as well. I know most of our WQA clerks already pay attention to this, but it would be good to add it as an official notice. Why? 
** WP:FORK. Putting the same discussion in several places makes it both difficult to follow and properly address, and Wiki doesn't like forked discussions.
** Forum shopping hurts the process and the user. An editor who throws the same issue into several different forums is much less likely to be taken seriously, even if he or she has a legitimate issue to present. A responding editor who sees the same issue in different places may ignore it on the idea that someone in the other forum is handling it. 
** Issues may be too large for WQA. If an issue has already escalated to the point of needing administrator intervention on ANI, AN/V, mediation or a RfC, a friendly note from a WQA clerk is unlikely to make much headway into the situation. In addition, serious incivility and other such issues are routinely handled by AN/I admins, and are also likely to be discussed in ongoing RfCs or mediation disputes. There isn't much we can do for those situations, save send people to administrators anyway.
* Reports must be filed by the affected parties. Again, we usually don't run into this much, but after a recent complaint that was anonymously filed on someone else's behalf, perhaps this should be stated more clearly: you cannot file WQAs for other people. This is in line with policy on RfC, which requires the involved parties to personally file and certify the disputes. Any WQAs that are filed by others should be closed immediately. 
* What we can do, and what we can't. Perhaps this should also be stated more clearly: 
** We can: give outside perspective on disputes, offer suggestions on where to take issues that need additional help or intervention, and leave notes for editors who may need to be reminded of etiquette issues or who may not know them. 
** We cannot: Block users, fulfill administrative tasks, address serious incivility or personal attacks, or intervene in content disputes.
Any suggestions or comments are welcome. DanielEng (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, for the most part. The one thing different though, I think blatant violations should be open for reporting by third parties, but stuff that could go either way should only be an issue if the affected party objects. For example, if someone posts "DanielEng is a big loser who should quit wiki and die" I think the WQA can be filed by anyone. If someone posts "Hey Daniel, you're a total nerd" that could be an insult, or a friendly joke, or any number of things - you'd have to report it. I'd rather have no policy than a hard-line one that turns away what would be meaningful reports. We can always close unnecessary ones as "not really a problem unless the affected party considers it hostile" or something, and request maybe that the affected party weigh in or re-open the complaint if necessary. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a very good point, and you're right. Perhaps then we should add something that if you are filing a complaint for someone else, you have to specify that, ie, the reporting editor is still responsible for signing and acknowledging that they filed the alert.DanielEng (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I would also add one that says do not file WQA complaints against people for their responses to a WQA. People who file complaints, or about whom others file complaints, have made a seriously bad habit of filing retaliatory complaints (not to mention otherwise harassing) WQA respondents. You tell someone to obey WP:CIVIL, and they say that doing so is incivility. If they think there are abuses going on at the WQA that aren't being handled by the dozen editors who frequent this board, and more who pop in from time to time, they should either file a real complaint at the ANI or check their perspective. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely. I think that one of the reasons more editors don't help out on this page is that they've seen what's happened to others here--they've responded to complaints and there's been retaliation. DanielEng (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree that editors should not post here for resolution of an issue on another board, however Wikiquette issues could come up which are unrelated to the primary issue which may require attention. For example, imagine a situation where a dispute about  editor X's arrogant attitude was being discussed on WP:ANI by editors X, Z, A, B and D(note I know that isn't an issue to discuss on ANI, but people do anyway). Editor Y appears and makes a minor perhaps inadvertant attack on X. So long as X isn't asking for intercession/resolution in the original discussion it seems like the best place to address Y's attack is here. Anynobody 01:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see where your point fits. I think if the issue is totally unrelated to the complaint at hand, it can be reported here, but I think that we shouldn't exaggerate such an exception - it's far more likely that the incivility will take place as a small component of the preexisting problem. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. If it's a completely unrelated issue (for instance, someone's discussing something on, say, WP:RSN and starts making personal attacks), it could perhaps be brought here. As Cheeser1 says, though, most of the time incivility is part of a larger issue, and is best addressed with the rest of the complaint. And if there's a RfC or AN/I discussion already in progress and there's incivility there, it's likely to be spotted and discussed then and there by the editors and admins handling the thread.DanielEng (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I would add that a response to a WQA report is not a personal attack - telling you "you are being uncivil," if you are being uncivil, is not a personal attack. People have a weird habit of saying "Me not civil? Well then neither are you!" Not sure how to phrase it, but it seems relevant to the last point. I've modified the above to reflect that (I assume that part of your comment is open to group editing?). --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please edit as needed--I definitely don't want this to be a solo effort. I agree completely. Best, DanielEng (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

text: As phrased, it is not carte blanche. It just says not to file a WQA about someone intervening in a civility problem. If someone's actions fall outside such appropriate activity, then it's still just as open for reporting as anything else. I understand your concern, as I've seen a number of users come here due to a complaint against themselves, and then start making a muss of other stuff, but I don't think what's written there would permit such a thing. It really only applies to, say, this sort of thing (at least, based on how I read it). If you can make it clearer, feel free to rephrase it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am just concerned that a certain percentage of our clientele here will think as follows: "This guy has the nerve of telling me what he thinks is wrong with me, and now he is immune? Aha! It's because of his self-assumed powerful position here." Of course it would be no problem to get rid of any troublemakers who might think this is the next step in their career, but they would do a lot of damage by meddling in cases where they actually are more or less neutral. We could make it clear it doesn't work that way by saying that the proper thing in such a situation is to do next step in the conflict resolution process. I have added "and think" at the end of the first sentence. I hope this makes it clear enough that the rule is not for particularly egregious cases. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

message: Based on the above, here is what I would like to add to the main page, under the are you in the right place? section.
Please keep in mind that WQA is a non-binding, informal forum.
What WQA can do:
* Intervene as a neutral third party to talk to editors who are engaging in incivility, or who might be new or unaware of Wiki policies.
* Provide neutral perspective on issues of incivility. 
* Give guidance on where on Wikipedia to take a particular problem.
What WQA CANNOT do:
* Give or enforce blocks, bans or binding disciplinary measures. 
* Intervene in content disputes, extreme personal attacks, vandalism or 3RR incidents.
* Mediate longterm, ongoing conflicts between two users.
To add in the section about how to file an alert:
If your specific issue is already being discussed elsewhere, please do not file a WQA. It is much easier for other users to help you when your dispute is being handled in one forum, not ten. If an issue is already serious enough to have gone to WP:ANI or WP:RFC, there's not much we can do to help. 
If you're filing a report to complain about a WQA editor who responded to a previous WQA alert, please stop now, and think. If you were contacted by a WQA volunteer based on a previously filed alert, they were acting as a neutral third party and probably have no interest in personally entering into a dispute with you. Asking you to respect WP:CIVIL or telling you not to make personal attacks does not itself constitute any sort of incivility or personal attack.
Comments, et al--please feel free to edit. If there's consensus, I'd like to try to get this onto the main page soon. Best, DanielEng (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would add that a response to a WQA report is not a personal attack - telling you "you are being uncivil," if you are being uncivil, is not a personal attack. People have a weird habit of saying "Me not civil? Well then neither are you!" Not sure how to phrase it, but it seems relevant to the last point. I've modified the above to reflect that (I assume that part of your comment is open to group editing?). --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please edit as needed--I definitely don't want this to be a solo effort. I agree completely. Best, DanielEng (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

text: As phrased, it is not carte blanche. It just says not to file a WQA about someone intervening in a civility problem. If someone's actions fall outside such appropriate activity, then it's still just as open for reporting as anything else. I understand your concern, as I've seen a number of users come here due to a complaint against themselves, and then start making a muss of other stuff, but I don't think what's written there would permit such a thing. It really only applies to, say, this sort of thing (at least, based on how I read it). If you can make it clearer, feel free to rephrase it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am just concerned that a certain percentage of our clientele here will think as follows: "This guy has the nerve of telling me what he thinks is wrong with me, and now he is immune? Aha! It's because of his self-assumed powerful position here." Of course it would be no problem to get rid of any troublemakers who might think this is the next step in their career, but they would do a lot of damage by meddling in cases where they actually are more or less neutral. We could make it clear it doesn't work that way by saying that the proper thing in such a situation is to do next step in the conflict resolution process. I have added "and think" at the end of the first sentence. I hope this makes it clear enough that the rule is not for particularly egregious cases. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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