Wikipedia talk:Wikiquette assistance/Archive 1

message: #I hadn't considered non-Wikiqette policy conflicts either way.
#The links would generally be to the talk page where the problem is perceived, and any further talk would take place there. 
#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)
thread_title:  Answers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Requests on oneself 

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

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Unfounded alert by [[User:Irmgard|Irmgard]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ad hominem 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Presented (mostly) without commentary:
*Initial contact: Talk:Diaper#ABDL_Content 
*Attempt to resolve problems: Talk:ABDL#ABDL_Content_In_Other_Pages
*General rudeness:, , , 
*Further attempts to resolve problem:  (I had forgotten I did that smart-ass edit summary, and will apologize.)
*Personal attacks:, , 
*Rudeness again:, , 
*More personal attacks:, , 
*And (maybe) a threat:
brenneman(t)(c) 02:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Davy Blue]] 

message: * A number of personal attacks against a third party, on User talk:Nick Boulevard.
** Now repeated on User talk:80.255/potw
***...which the user concerned has now said will be reverted every time that personal abuse is removed, claiming that the official policy is only a guideline.
::::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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Moved from main page - August 14 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Use of main page 

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)

text: *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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title:  Using this page as a replacement for [[WP:PAIN]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal for new lead 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Instructions are not being followed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Who is responsible for archiving the main page? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Please use English" template 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes. The reason is that this is not a wikilawyering board. Sancho McCann 09:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That what some claimed at the other two as well. --Irpen 09:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Diffs? --Irpen 23:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? Sancho McCann 23:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 </font>  ✉  00:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this page needed? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  index 

message: : 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  /me goes and finds Amarkov  --Iamunknown 21:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Of course, so long as I don't have to support keeping this. -Amarkov moo! 04:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Okay then, let's see how that works. -Amarkov moo! 18:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BOLD, revert, discuss cycle 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 • Talk) 01:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; people will just clutter up the admin noticeboard with complaints Johnbod 01:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmm, I thought this page had gone. 

message: 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 • Talk) 02:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a nice shrubbery? :) Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Styling 

message: Thank you to  AQu01rius (User • 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)
replies: text: 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 • Talk) 17:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  suggested page organization improvment 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  consensus request for removing the "close this page" infobox from the main page 

message: 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)
replies: text: Looks great! AQu01rius (User • Talk) 06:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: procedure instructions updated; status tags implemented

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: update

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  editors needed to respond to alerts