Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep and reform by discussing at Wikipedia talk:Wikiquette alerts.

Note this nomination was originally listed as Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts on 2008-02-19, closed after about 14 hours and then relisted as a separate discussion after a deletion review. It has now been discussed for an additional 8 days and both discussions were considered as well as comments made at the DRV to the extent not reflected here. The primary arguments in favor of deletion were that it is ineffective (some said even harmful), poorly watched, and a waste of time. The primary arguments in favor of keeping were that the process works sometimes and that's enough, that it can solve problems before an admin is required, and that it has problems but these should be dealt with by discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikiquette alerts not by MfD; if discussion is unsuccessful in fixing the problems the community can decide to close the board and mark it historical, most likely after an RfC on the board's discussion page. Even if closed deletion of the board would be inappropriate. (non-admin closing) Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts

Procedural nomination per overturn and relist ruling at DELREV. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. It's already been discussed that MfD is an inappropriate forum for this page. As has been noted before, s a policy page this wouldn't be deleted anyway; it would be discussed at WP:VP and would be tagged as historical. DanielEng (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete - It's simply a process time sink with little good coming from the page. The page is poorly watched and is dealt with by very few people. They often get problems there which are far too big for the people that watch over the page, and the issues either get forgotten or simply not enough is done about it. The page has few teeth, and doesn't really have any ability to deal with incivility - often sections lead to threaded arguments between disputants. The project would be better served by directing users who have issues with a users incivility to WP:AN, which is more than capable of handling a few extra threads, and has better coverage frome experienced admins/users who will be able to offer a better evaluation of situations. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

AN/I is already overburdened with inappropriate threads, not every incident of incivility warrants administrator attention, and a lot of the threads on WQA are issues that have already gone to AN/I and have been ignored or bounced back to WQA. Problems that are "too big" for WQA are referred to the appropriate forum. When WQA is used for its stated purpose it is very effective; when it's abused by editors holding grudges or seeking backups in content disputes, we get those long threads. But that's the same on AN/I and every other dispute resolution page on Wiki.DanielEng (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I said AN not AN/I - AN is much less overburdened that AN/I but still gets a wide audience. WQA has no ability to solve disputes, it can issue warnings and that's about it, but so can any user who sees a thread on AN, and there are greater numbers watching AN than WQA - more people will see threads so there is a greater opporunity for them to be sorted. From what I've seen of WQA is does little to help disputes about incivility, and often makes them worse because no-one really seems sure what to do. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

But again, bringing complaints to AN that don't warrant administrator attention isn't likely to solve much--they're likely to be dismissed and ignored (and since they're incidents, they're liable to end up at AN/I anyway). It's true WQA can't solve everything, but one of the things it does very well is to point people where they need to go to solve their issues. If you look through the archives, you'll see many cases where editors have gone away happy with their issues resolved. A fair number of the unsolvable cases on WQA are such because they're inappropriate--they're cases where editors are simply trying to use WQA to get their own way. If WQA is removed and the only recourse left is AN or AN/I, it will simply bog down that system more than it already is, and escalate situations needlessly.DanielEng (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strongest possible delete with napalm, radiation, brimstone, powerful curses and binding spells. WQA varies between useless and actively harmful. It's the perfect venue for guilty parties to play the victim and waste the time of productive contributors at little or no risk to themselves. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Tell us how you really feel Ray, don't hold anything back!! ;-) Seriously though, I see both sides to this argument, but I have to say post a notice on AN AND ANI, discuss on WQA talk page, if kept, no harm, no foul, if ended, tag as historical and proceed with the consensus result — Rlevse • Talk • 03:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for being too reticent and obscure. Whatever's the appropriate procedure for putting this thing out of our misery is fine. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete If you read the thread here [1] you will see why I feel the page should be deleted. Especially:

I apologize for thinking that this forum was the best place to begin without making my complaint a major issue. I was only following the suggestion at [113] to:

Step 6: Turn to others for help

For incivility

Turn to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts for problems with uncivil editors.

Obviously, the instructions were wrong.

The idea is a good one, but unless the editors posting there to "help" understand that they should be trying to offer advice, rather than talk the complainant out of complaining, it will do more harm than good. My entry there began with "I am considering a formal complaint ..." and one would think that would have been sufficient indication that I was offended but wanted a reasonable solution. My suggestion to stop SA from paranormal edits was based on the long contentious history of him editing paranormal subjects. A more knowledgeable editor might have shown me an alternative. Lacking a reasoned response, I found other ways to address my concern.

So yes, make it go away.Tom Butler (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This is an example of how the WQA process is being abused; not a reason for it to go away. The OP asked WQA to stop an other editor from editing a specific topic; clearly that is outside of WQA's scope and is specifically noted as such. We did offer the OP advice, but he wanted to see the editor punished again and again, which is not what we do.DanielEng (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  Comment: That was gross abuse by another editor and was of no consequence to either Tom or to WQA in general. As a side note, SA did post another WQA post today, and although it nearly devolved into a petty edit war (section split due to SA's disagreement over another participant's reply), it was corrected. As such, I propose that we discuss the process of WQA at WQA, and that we craft up a possible solution to any lingering issues rather than outright deleting it. seicer | talk | contribs 02:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  Comment: As for "convincing the complainant to stop complaining", one thing that users of WQA have to accept is that if it is obvious that there is no merit to the complaint, the "staffers" of WQA are perfectly within their right to tell the complaining user as such. If we see that a user is filing a frivolous alert and/or that they've violated civility policies more than the person they're complaining about, IMO we should tell them that we think they're in the wrong. I've personally done this with several users, and I know they don't like it, but what else am I supposed to do? I don't grant immunity to people who are breaking policies just because they claim someone else is. If that's what we're really supposed to do, WQA would be nothing but frivolous complaints, and then there really would be a reason to delete it outright. As it is, though, I think we need to rework the process a bit and make it clearer about how the page works, so that there is less confusion and less time wasted in trying to explain it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• KeepComment While I agree it could be improved, doesn't work as often as I'd like, and when it does can be imperfect, that describes any noticeboard on Wikipedia though. I think especially needs to clarify the difference between honest critique/discussion and unnecessary comments which insult or are off topic. I'm going to withhold final opinion until I can evaluate some of the other arguments for deletion, but for now I'd say keep it. Anynobody 02:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  I honestly can't think of a better solution, which would be crucial for me to say this should be deleted. (Deleting something that kinda works in favor of nothing, makes no sense.) Moreover I agree with what Seicer said below, this isn't miscellany it's the first step of dispute resolution regarding editor conduct according to {{Dispute resolution}}. Anynobody 00:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep (While I'm not sure this is an appropriate venue for discussion of its deletion, I'm unable to find the discussion mentioned above as to why.) This is one of the too-few ways of getting assistance with behavioral disputes before admin attention is required. While it is a target of gaming and point-making, the fact that a WP:DR forum is a target of disruption doesn't mean we give in to those that disrupt it. --Ronz (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep: If the system must go, MfD'ing it is not the proper method. As such, I would employ discussion and consensus amongst other participants and other Wikipedians at WQA to determine if the system in place is still valuable or if it has been supplanted with other noticeboards. As we have seen with Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard, MfDing it is not the proper venue -- retaining the page as a historical archive is the nom. seicer | talk | contribs 03:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep per previous arguments (from the first MfD). I've been the butt of some serious tomfoolery and stupidity at the WQA, and yes it sometimes has abuses and problems, but that doesn't mean we should delete it. PS we don't delete noticeboards per XfD, we close them per community discussion at the board's talkpage. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: Listed at WP:ANI#Regarding Wikiquette Alerts depreciation for further discussion regarding depreciation. seicer | talk | contribs 03:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep: WP:WQA defuses a lot of problems that otherwise would require administrator intervention. Dlabtot (talk) 04:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: WQA, is just another forum to shop on. Got a problem, go to AN, AN/I. If admins are too busy to do their jobs, get rid of them and find new admins. Shot info (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: WQA appears to be harmless. I see no reason to delete. Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Discussion is the first step in dispute resolution. While I am only an occassional participant at WQA, it seems to me that getting disputes out in the open rather than letting them fester behind the scenes is a Good Thing. We don't need "teeth" at the first stage--that's why DR is an escalating process. --jonny-mt 07:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - not only is it utterly useless and more lynchmobesque than RFC/I, I've got a strong feeling it's the personal attack board in disguise. Oh, and MFD is the only viable way to get rid of process - see PAIN, CSN, Esperanza, etc. Will ^(talk) 08:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep. There are numerous attempts to use WQA for manipulation, but as far as I can tell they are always detected, and they tend to backfire quite strongly if they are escalated to AN/I (as usually happens in the worst cases). WQA is also the kind of place where some people go and complain: "He told me that I am wrong, and that's uncivil so please block him." And then they must often be told: "He only said that after you told him that he is wrong and actually gave a plausible argument for this, while you didn't, so calling him civil is a bit of a stretch. Why don't you try doing the following to get along with each other and sort out your content dispute before seeking punishment (which we don't do here anyway)?" On AN they would probably be just sent away by an admin. As to some problems getting forgotten: If neither side is prepared to back down in a trivial dispute, this may be the best possible outcome. More generally, most people respond much better to being told (diplomatically!) about problems in their behaviour by uninvolved third parties than to "educative blocks". Especially when we allow them to learn and correct their behaviour without forcing them to admit that it was wrong in the first place. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I have seen good things come from this page. It's a good way for people to have their behavior corrected before it gets to a level where blocks are needed. Yes, it doesn't always work, but that's why we have other forms of dispute resolution, and why admins can enforce behavior policy. But there really isn't anything else quite like this one. This is similar to the deprecated WP:PAIN, but unlike that one, the focus here is on behavior and etiquette generally, rather than on one specific issue. Mangojuice^talk 15:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - and discuss improvements. I for one have seen the WQA used to bring content disputes into play with the result of turning these civility discussions into content arguments, often to the detriment of the editor bringing the complaint. Editors supportive of the POV of the attacker "pile on" with content-related discrediting attacks against the filer, and "rationalize" the incivility of the attacker. I suggest that the page (a) adopt a policy of allowing any editor to immediately delete any WQA comment that makes a content related "rationalization", and (b) provide immediate sanctions for any editor (involved in the initial complaint or not) who engages in any form of discrediting attacks against the editor filing the complaint that are not strictly related to civility. The behavior I see rampant at WQA clearly indicates that WQA is being abused as a "groupthink" weapon, see Irving Janis' symptoms 2, 3 and 4. WNDL42 (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I see WQA as an indispensable "learning ground" for newer editors, many times I've seen newbies learn how their previous comments may have been provacative, they learn about "baiting" other editors, and the conversations, when kept strictly to civility issues, these users often get a mild and appropriate rebuke for their own misdeeds. WQA is a great lightweight learning experience and makes for better wikipedians. WNDL42 (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Are you kidding? I've relied on WQA multiple times for help in solving problems, and I think plenty of people around here have done the same. Sure it can use some improvements, but what page around here couldn't? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep. It's an important resource for helping editors resolve disputes. It may be subject to abuse, but so is ANI. If anything, people who use it to improperly air grievances are usually also calling attention to themselves, which is added value. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Any methods which help enforce civility are okay by me. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: I have read and followed the going-ons of this page since I was notified of a dispute between two editors in which I was peripherally involved. In that particular case, instead of dealing with the issue of incivility, it became a 72-hour rant fest in which more editors were concerned with rationalizing the reasons for a relatively well known editor's incivility rather than addressing the issue of incivility itself.[2] Take some time to peruse some of the recent archives and you will see that the Wikiquette Alerts page is extremely inefficient and largely ineffective. I appreciate the work that the a few of the board regulars attempt to do, but it is time to end this process. Regards, --SimpleParadox 19:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  As the first step in the DR process, the WQA is by definition prone to a plurality of disruptive/frivolous complaints, misdirected content disputes, and complaints in which the interested parties do not participate (or do not do so appropriately, or whatever else). Mediation, for example, requires consenting participation in the process. Deleting the WQA will just dump these complaints onto the AN or somewhere else, and will leave nowhere for users to untangle civility disputes from content issues. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  It's interesting to note that the editor about whom the complaint was filed acknowledged his/her error in the end:I will admit that the style of my comments was certainly unkind and could certainly besr editing. The content---that here we have a persistent problem worth complaining about---is valid. And frustrating, the way it persists (in the case cited by Cheeser1, one "strong delete"r said on his own talk page that it should be deleted because it's mathematics). Which actually looks like WQA did what it was supposed to, rant fest aside. Anynobody 10:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral. I think that this page has the potential to be useful, even though there are the flaws that others have drawn attention to. However, its scope may need to be re-evaluated. A few weeks ago, I posted a request for intervention there, and wasn't exactly satisfied with the response. To summarise, I was involved in a dispute with another editor, who I felt was being disruptive at a WikiProject talk page. He wasn't being abusive, just a nuisance. Looking at possible places for intervention, WP:RFC wasn't appropriate, but on that page it says For a mild-to-moderate conflict, you might try Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, a quick, simple way to get an outside view. However, when I posted there, I was basically told by all to go away because the user in question wasn't being incivil (which I had never claimed). Perhaps it should be renamed "Incivility alerts" if that is its true purpose. --RFBailey (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I echo those people who wanted to delete this page for a number of reasons. This page is poorly watched (meaning that a few editors watchlist this page) and it feels like a duplicate of WP:PAIN. The people who are fairly familiar with Wikipedia and have conflicts with the others tend to use the ANI regularly and not notice Wikiquette alerts (thus making it somewhat useless as a dispute resolutor). If you have a problem with another editor concerning civility issues, please go to the ANI (or AN) and you would get a much faster response (which in turn solves the problem faster in most cases). PrestonH 03:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Toothless. You can't isolate civility in this manner: incivility is invariably due to a wider set of circumstances, and those go to ANI. Moreschi (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • WQA is specifically designed to be "toothless" - it is non-binding, and it is not designed for people to take action against one another. It is meant to be a place for people to resolve interpersonal disputes through informal mediation, and in that way it is similar (and even less formal) than the Mediation Cabal. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and discuss improvements: Yes, I agree that WQA has its problems, but I feel that (a) those problems are not beyond fixing, and (b) many of the problems with it seeming like a lynch mob are because of negative impressions left by some people (particularly "repeat offenders") not getting what they want out of it. There have been quite a few cases recently where people have come to WQA expecting that we can and will take action against the user(s) they are reporting, but in fact any admin action that is taken as a result of an alert is taken because that admin became aware of the offensive behavior through the alert. Otherwise, WQAs that cannot be resolved through calm discussion and sound advice are invariably referred to other venues, such as AN/I and formal mediation. What we need is not for the process to be removed, but rather improved - clearer language to let people know what WQA is and isn't, and clearer policies as to what we can/should and can't/shouldn't take on. Resolve some of these issues, and there will likely be far fewer people who'll think it's a lynch mob. (Face it, no matter how fair you make a process or policy, SOMEONE is going to think it's rigged.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: Already been through this once and kept, needs some help:yes, but is a good way for editors to solve disputes. §tepshep • ¡Talk to me! 23:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. A worthwhile project which is frequently fruitful. — Athaenara ✉ 03:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Abstain, I do not think a deletion debate is the appropriate venue for a discussion of this process's worth. - Chardish (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.