Wikipedia talk:Wikiquette alerts/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Process disputed

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

I saw the tag you put on the main page, and I'm a little puzzled by it. This isn't a "policy or guideline" page. It's specifically indicated that this is informal. No "certification" is needed to post on any of the message boards--not AN/I, AIV, etc. If you have a problem and you want feedback, you post here for help. Just as on the other message boards, if the diffs don't point to a problem the volunteers here can handle, it's referred elsewhere. If it's obvious that the editor is trying to drag an edit war or personal conflict onto WQA, or has filed an alert to be malicious, it's closed. It's non-binding, it doesn't count as a "demerit' against anyone's Wiki record, and as such it's not "putting a noose around anyone's neck". We've also been able to solve numerous problems that have been ignored/aren't serious enough for AN/I or RfC. And I for one would rather have more informal, low-pressure forums for dispute resolution than less...the entire idea is to head things off before they need to go to RfC. Best, DanielEng (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Is this a serous suggestion? --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
He's put a dispute tag on the main page, so I'm treating it as such...but seeing as how the "dispute" is only coming from one user and he doesn't seem to have provided any valid reason for it, perhaps it should be pulled.DanielEng (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
But this page isn't a policy or guideline. I might as well tack that tag onto George H. W. Bush. I know you already said that, I'm just confused as to what on Earth this "dispute" is based on, besides an apparent dislike of RfC/Us and WQAs. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a process, though, and {{disputedtag}} can be used on here even if the letter doesn't say so. And yes, it's a serious suggestion. The less places for editors to attack others, the better. Will (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Nope, that tag is specifically for official policy and guideline pages. This isn't one, so it is inappropriate, and if you try to add it again, it will be considered disruption.
I also think you might want to take a moment and read what is on this page. WQA is specifically designed as intervention to keep editors from attacking others. Intervening in conflicts before they get out of hand, and require things like RfCs and blocks, is one way to keep Wiki more harmonious. As has already been explained to you, alerts posted here are not attacks. When editors aren't getting along on Wiki, which is inevitable given the wide range of personalities here, it's good to have a place to try to sort things out and have some informal dispute resolution. You're welcome to disagree, and if you don't like the WQA process, you're welcome to refrain from visiting here, but trying to dispute this page's existence because you personally don't like it won't work. Best, DanielEng (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
How else are we supposed to dispute process? Will (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, trying to have the page deleted won't work either, I'm afraid, and is going to be considered a bad faith, if not completely nonsensical nomination. If you have any valid reasons for disliking WQA, you're welcome to add them here and we can talk them over. But as has been explained to you, and is clear on the page, THIS IS NOT PART OF THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS, IT IS INFORMAL. In other words, you don't have to come here, more than any other page, if you don't like it or don't want to understand what it is. We work on consensus here, and WQA was created with the consensus of many administrators and regular users. We don't work on what one person decides he doesn't like. At this point I'm really going to suggest that unless you have any valid points or questions, you step away from the Reichstag and put down the Spiderman suit. Best, DanielEng (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Thank you for this info--I didn't realize WP:DR even existed. Learn something new here every day. Thanks!DanielEng (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Each page is designated policy in its own right. The WQA is not a subpage of WP:DR, is it? I don't think so. As far as I can tell, only "direct" policy pages (to adopt your terminology) are eligible to be "challenged" in this fashion. If Sceptre wanted to challenge the WQA with that template, he'd have to smack it on the relevant policy page (WP:DR perhaps). This isn't really a policy page, even if it is conjured up by an over-arching policy page. It's an alertboard. --Cheeser1 (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm willing to accept the idea that policies regarding WQA and its practices can be challenged and should be subject to review. As a part of WP:DR (that page suggests WQA as a first step), I think it's important that it be treated with the same level of fairness as, say, the Mediation Cabal/Committee. But that said, how does one really push to change an informal process? WQA is so informal that there are few hard and fast rules about how it MUST be run, and many cases need their own approach anyway, that it's really hard to pin down exactly what we really CAN change without just getting rid of it entirely.
I maintain that we've done more good than harm here. Some people get outed, sure, and some don't get what they want, but people tend to forget the whole "We can't and won't block people here" part - an admin may do that separately if he/she sees that it's warranted, but in those cases the only involvement of WQA would be to bring that to the admin's attention.
I have noticed more and more cases here getting really heated and our staffers failing to resolve matters more frequently lately - I'm concerned about that. But I don't think it's gotten to the point yet where the process needs a major overhaul - I noticed people on AN/I were saying that WP:CIVIL is broken, and that is an official policy. If something like that needs work, then disputing WQA is unlikely to help matters much. :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Lately, and one of the reasons why I haven't been as active here, is that there have been a high number of repeat filings from the same group of users. If it's not about fringe theories, it's about the one group of users promoting their agenda. And it's always the same editor that's in dispute. I can't count on my hand the number of times I've seen SA's name on here, or Guido's, or OrangeMarlin's. Some people seem to think that WQA is really a Nanny Board, that our sole duty is to give a few spankings on the rear and let them go off scot-free, again and again.
It's much more than that; it's a first step of the dispute resolution process. Not the Nanny Board. Or the catch-all board.
Some of the cases haven't been resolved for that reason. They are either too complicated to handle here, especially since many non-admins "staff" it, or they well exceed the bounds of WQA. If Will does want to remove WQA, an MFD isn't the way to go, IMO. Another noticeboard (I can't remember the name) was depreciated and essentially merged with another noticeboard -- that would be the route to go, if you want to pursue that route -- but it would involve rather lengthy discussions. seicer | talk | contribs 06:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Some people unfortunately seem to think that they should be running to WQA with every small complaint instead of trying to work through. They also seem to be trying to drag WQA into content disputes and other areas for which we're really not appropriate, and abusing it as a tool to try to retaliate against users who have made them angry. I'm not quite sure what is to be done about that, other than firmly closing such alerts when they come up to try to deter people from making frivolous and inappropriate reports.DanielEng (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

wikipedantry

A small matter, but a frequently repeated error.

  • Incivility - noun
  • Uncivil - adjective

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

It's in Cymbeline:
Cymbeline. He was a Prince.
Guiderius. A most inciuill one. The wrongs he did mee /Were nothing Prince-like. (5.5.292) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Not forgetting 1683 D. A. Art Converse 117 They are rather not civil than positively incivil. 1707 Reflex. upon Ridicule 189 He is Proud, Haughty, Incivil. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
My goodness! I just wanted to make a bombastic and absolute statement, then stand back with my hands on my hips. Now I am beset by gentle and learned wikipedians, I believe I will make a complaint about this civility. cygnis insignis 06:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Archiving

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

I'd be fine with that. And this is a dumb question and I'm probably not seeing a link that's right in front of me, but where are the 2008 archives going? I notice that the archive file box only has 2005-2007.DanielEng (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea, but I just started Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/Archive/2008. Let me do some digging. seicer | talk | contribs 02:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I see now. I'll set up an archive box similar to ANI/AE/etc. seicer | talk | contribs 02:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Bogdangiusca Care to explain your comments?

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

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

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

"Closed" does not mean "please repeat your complaint on the talk page." If you look at the diff in question, it's not even saying "you are a troll" it's saying "I said ___ about trolls earlier" basically. What do you expect? You were being disruptive, and you weren't even directly called a troll. Abusing this process and persistently lashing out at people here who respond and tell you to chill and try to behave in ways that aren't construed as trolling - that's not going to help you. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I really must be stupid!
One editor opens the alert...
...another closes after stepping in to offer support to the user I consider being uncivil.
....and the second editor then pronounces the whole thing a non event!
Now a third is saying I am not to question the decision of the second, although on the second editor's user page it says to ask questions here.
The third editor, you, then misquotes the text posted by User:Bogdangiusca which says "I ignored the discussion because I felt you were just trying to disrupt Wikipedia and I said that sterile discussions with a troll are useless."
Now, when I ask for advice on how I was a troll as defined by Wikipedia, I am told this was never said, and that I am apparehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist

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

However, my problem was that unwarranted name-calling is uncivil(is it ever warranted?), and civility is dealt with by Wikiquette alerts!
Well, whatever. Like water off ducks back. If Bogdan can only offer abuse rather then participate in a civil discussion with well thought out arguments and some facts, then so be it.
I think you are correct. I will not use Wikiquette alerts again if this is the standard of "hearing" I can expect --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hearing? This isn't court, and you don't need to (or get to) drag out your argumentation until the judges/jury are convinced that you've been wronged. Name calling could be warranted, say, if you were being disruptive and someone said so. Seems somewhat applicable. Good question. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, "getting a hearing" is a more acceptable expression then "getting a reading"!!!
However, since I can't expect DanielEng to read what is written either, what should I try, telepathy?
I know its not a court. Only because I don't see any kangaroos.
But, hey, anyone can say just about anything, right? I can say that DanielEng was disruptive because I don't agree with her decision. After all, there is no definition for that, right? I can call you a troll because I don't know what the heck that means anymore (and I've been dealing with them since 1996!).
In any case. I have removed a link to Wikiquettes from my user page after only a week. I'll put it down to bad advice. Its a useless place to address issues of etiquette since people in position to do so are not particularly clear on manners, procedure and English. I suppose you are going to report me for being uncivil now? Be my guest. The likes of Bogdan are just praying for me to be blocked. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
By the way, they aren't "her" decisions. I'm male. You have a choice here: You can calm down, stop feeling persecuted and take a long, hard look at the way you've been interacting with editors all across Wiki. Or you can keep lashing out, abusing process, misreading policy and trying to bend it to your needs, and ignoring what is said to you. If you continue down the latter path, you will probably end up blocked eventually, and the only one responsible for it will be you. Your decision, but there's nothing else to say about it here. DanielEng (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I need to take a long hard look? I did lash out - once. I abused process? I misread policy? I tried to bend it to my needs? Ignoring what you said? What did you say? Never mind, you don't have to answer that. I don't care. I have read enough.
I'm sure you are familiar with GIGO? If you truly care about Wikipedia, you will consider that someone is at the beginning of that process. Maybe then you will consider my behavior from a different POV. I deal with information for a living. When I get a word wrong, it may cost millions to my employer and its clients. It is only because some editors in Wilkipedia do not actually appreciate the effect their contributions can have on lives of others, or are able to express them in a value statement that they can make contributions in the Laissez-faire way that invites people like me to either laugh or cry. An encyclopaedia is supposed to be an authoritative reference source. This means every part of it is either true, or its false. So call me a troll why don't you ;O)
Special:Watchlist? Is that like in Big Brother?

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

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

How to prevent gaming and improper use of WQA?

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

Could you provide some examples of instances of "gaming the system and improper reports"? It would help focus the discussion. Dlabtot (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I think there are a few in the recent MfD. --Ronz (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, if you can't provide several examples, could you please provide at least one? Are you talking about something that exists in reality? If so, please provide a WP:DIFF. Dlabtot (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
"I think there are a few in the MfD" --Ronz (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't we be following up with the examples listed in the MfD? --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to move the discussion away from vague complaints to concrete examples of where the noticeboard has had a problem and how we can use those examples to improve it. Absent some tether to reality, in the form of some examples of gaming and improper use of WQA, so that we can explore whether your point is valid, it's tempting to dismiss this complaint as sour grapes. So I respectfully repeat my request for you to provide an example that illustrates your argument. Continually pointing to another, closed, discussion, in which I participated, is in no way enlightening. Dlabtot (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Then give it a rest. I think that the concerns there, and the examples, should be addressed. --Ronz (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

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

What I'm not seeing very consistently are editors responding by looking into the context and behaviors of all parties. If we cannot do this consistently, then this forum should probably be deleted. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's get off that horse. We're not going to MfD the WQA, okay? If you have constructive criticism or examples to cite (and please don't just cite the WQAs against you), fine, but stop with the calls for deletion. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. And I disagree with the comment that editors are not "looking into the context and behavior of all parties." I've seen the opposite here. When people come in and file alerts inappropriately, editors do look through the diffs, examine the entire picture to see what is happening and shut them down. The editors who respond to Alerts here seem to be pretty impervious to WP:LAWYER and the numerous requests of "so-and-so called reverted me, they're rude, ban then NOW!" If anything needs to happen here, I think it's to try to find a way to keep people from abusing the system so much. DanielEng (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
What type of abuse of the system are you talking about? --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I think Seicer has mentioned some examples below. We've seen a number of cases where people have filed WQA alerts for matters that are clearly out of our jurisdiction (ie, the recent one against Science Apologist where the editor wanted SA banned from all articles on a particular subject), or have filed alerts simply in an attempt to get someone to side with them on a content matter. We've also seen cases where alerts have been filed to retaliate against other editors who previously filed alerts. In every single case where an Alert has been filed wrongly or abusively, it's been picked up, questioned and closed, even when the editor tries to get it to continue (see the discussion thread a few topics up, where an editor ranted and raved because his WQA was dismissed, for instance). All of this happens at other message boards too. AN/I, RPP and AIV in particular get a lot of nonsense, of course.DanielEng (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Basically, I think you're saying that WQA catches the problems, and that these type of problems are not specific to just WQA. Mostly, I agree. --Ronz (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The horse isn't dead. We're supposed to be discussing it here.
How about I cite the WQAs against you? Talk about gaming WQA!
"What I'm not seeing very consistently are editors responding by looking into the context and behaviors of all parties." --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The WQAs against me were dismissed as patent retaliation/abuse of the WQA. Please find a situation where people don't consider the whole picture, because its seems to me like more often than not, we take flack for considering the whole picture. And the horse is dead - calling for deletion is going to do nothing but make this discussion tendentious and unproductive. We're past that turn, and we didn't take it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to mention the d-word. Can we get to the topic at hand? --Ronz (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
We're all waiting for you to substantiate this "nobody looks at the big picture" claim. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
"However, this is not always done" is not "nobody looks at the big picture". --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What I'd like to see here more consistently:

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

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

Editors are often outed if they have been in similar disputes (see OrangeMarlin, ScienceApologist, etc.). I can check the block logs of all parties involved to see if there have been prior blocks that could be of use to the discussion, or if they have been previously advised of such. As for the last bullet, if an editor is not clear about a civility issue, we usually respond with the statement, "Please provide additional diffs." seicer | talk | contribs 18:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Seicer. All of that is basically standard practice. Instead of continuing to muse on what you'd like to see here, I'll ask again if you can find concrete examples of such things happening. I'm of a mind that in general, we actually do a good job of gathering an adequate amount of context before responding to any notice posted here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad that we agree. I think we need to expand the list and become better at following it. --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
We don't agree - you seem to think it's an issue whereby respondents (e.g. me) do not consider the whole picture. You are saying that this is something that must change, as if this is the issue that spurred the MfD-turned-discussion. If it's such a big deal, give us some examples! I'm sorry, but of all things you're expecting us WQA respondents to spend time researching past incidents, pagehistories, etc (which we do), but you aren't taking the time to do the same. You seem to be of the opinion that this does not happen regularly (or not enough, or not all the time, whatever it is your concerns are). If so, why don't you humor us WQA respondents and give us some examples, because if you agreed with me, you wouldn't have a problem with how such "big picture" issues are handled. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I think one of the issues that's paramount here is that literally anyone can come and give input regarding civility. There is no structure to this, or a list of "WQA mediators." We could have more structure if we appointed a few mediators to WQA that could provide some formality to the process, which I wouldn't mind proposing if it comes to that. What I've seen is that some editors, who may hold a grudge against one particular set of users, will file frivolous WQA requests just in spite or to be pointy, and then will try to mediate the discussion from a biased viewpoint, or try to mediate other discussions in such a manner. It doesn't work that way. seicer | talk | contribs 20:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
What I'd like to see is an expansion of the current instructions we already have, to give submitting editors a better understanding of what to expect, and reviewing editors better guidance on what should be done. --Ronz (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
What do you think needs to be added? Dlabtot (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Besides something referring to what I've already listed? --Ronz (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Responding to your comment that what you'd like to see is an expansion of the current instructions we already have, I ask you, in what ways, specifically, would you like to see the current instructions expanded? What words, phrases, sentences or paragraphs, should be added to the current instructions? Dlabtot (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm open to suggestions. I'm concerned that what instructions we have already are being overlooked. For example, shouldn't Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Anonymous_IP_addresses_99.235.43.93_and__24.36.9.241_continuing_to_make_personal_attacks be closed since it has been opened in two other places? Does it belong here at all since he's asking for action from an admin? --Ronz (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any suggestions, because I think the current instructions are fine. If you think the instructions are good, but that a lot of editors fail to follow them, I agree. If you wish to change the instructions, you'll have to make the suggestions yourself, rather than wait for suggestions from people who don't agree with you. If you think there is a thread on WP:WQA, that needs closing, why don't you go ahead and close it? Dlabtot (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Ronz, this makes no sense whatsoever. The response to this was obvious, clear cut, and came within like an hour of posting. How is this one of the issues that plagues the WQA? How does this demonstrate that the WQA needs fixin' as explained in the MfD? This issue was handled. There's no problem here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


Examples from MfD

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

And what is it about these examples that you wish to call to our attention? Dlabtot (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The case with Hardy was resolved - he apologized, explained himself, and the context was analyzed in great depth (AfDs, issues of mathematics on Wikipedia, etc). The SA case is well outside the bounds of the WQA, and had alot of discussion that wasn't productive or germane. Perhaps no respondent analyzed the entire context of the situation, but only by virtue of the fact that things that are in active arbitration, mediation, etc are not generally in-bounds. Neither of these examples involves a failure by respondents, on the whole, to examine the surrounding context (or at least acknowledge it and respond appropriately). --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What should be done when context is not being considered?

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

I endorse the question (in se); I proposed three additional specific concerns (below), and IMO rather than derailing the discussion we have basically cited each other as examples of unfettered bad behaviour. I also would like to know what to do, and I honestly hope some third party suggests something new. To be complete I should add that we also are apparently citing each other as examples of derailing discussion away from any consensus. I propose adhering to the list of concerns as indicators of bad debate; e.g., cite specifics, answer questions, etc. Pete St.John (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Your question lacks a valid premise. Dlabtot (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
NB Dlabdot's above was near-simul with mine, not quite an EC. Pete St.John (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. It's like me asking you "How do we address your children's stupidity?" If your children are not stupid, or if we are already addressing it, my question is nonsense. You want to know how to deal with bad WQAs? Look at the archives. There are hundreds of WQAs that have been closed due to forumshopping, lack of merit, larger contextual issues, etc. All of the issues you guys are talking about (e.g. answer questions directly) already exist at WP:CIVIL, which people will (or should) have read by the time they get here. Ronz, nobody can answer your concerns if they aren't valid ones. If you can't explain to us what's going on (you can't, empirically we know this now, stop trying), you'll have to cite examples. If no examples exist, then it's obviously not an issue. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL doesn't seem effective regarding sustained sequences of individually civil behaviours which are in the aggregate as infuriating as Chinese water torture; but to give a specific example (of a prolonged sequence) is awkward. I'd start with pretty much the entire contents of my Talk page; one could grep for "Ronz". Particularly there is this current WQA Pete St.John (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
That was explained pretty thoroughly already at the WQA. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Other issues

(adding to Ronz's list) How about:
  1. Identify when editors refuse to provide specifics (see example "could you provide some instances..." above)
  2. Identify when editors repeat themselves without adding to the understanding (see example "a few in MfD" above)
  3. Identify when editors refuse to answer pointed questions
Sorry to seem eristic but there seems (to me) to be quite alot to gaming wiki. Pete St.John (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what these have to do with civility. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I think Pete's point (sorry if I misunderstand Pete) is that refusing to provide specifics, repeating yourself without adding to the understanding, and refusing to answer pointed questions, those three could be added to the criteria for when someone participating in a complaint here is gaming or otherwise being less-than-cooperative. I also think Pete may be hinting (if he isn't, I'll start the hinting) that you are possibly doing two or three of these things. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like some editors need to question if they're assuming good faith of others. --Ronz (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you please be more specific? Do you mean to say that PeterStJohn and/or Cheeser1 (please state which, if any, of them, or who else) is wrongly accusing you of a specific kind of unconstructive behaviour? If not, please explain what else you mean. If that's what you mean, please clarify: Do you intend to say that their accusation can / can only / can most easily (please choose an option) be explained by the assumption that they are not assuming good faith? If that's not what you mean, please explain what you mean.
I think this long catalogue of questions is a good illustration of the problem with your contributions to this discussion: I am genuinely puzzled, as I have been before in my one previous interaction with you. In that other case what you said also did not seem to make any sense at all, but it was so vague that it seemed impossible to reply without reading your mind. When I made a good-faith effort at that, you accused me of assuming good faith.
Please make an effort to express yourself more clearly so that other editors can meaningfully reply to what you say. Giving very specific answers to my questions above might be a good way to start. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
First, yes, Cheeser1 accurately interprets my intent, thanks, and I should take responsibility for the "hinting" (which I meant to sufficiently direct to not merely insinuate; by citing searchable words). Second, to Ronz, I consider "AGF" to mean to treat edits with the initial assumption of good faith. I doubt Ronz's good faith on account of what I perceive as a persistent pattern over a long time, which I have some difficulty enunciating effectively, but which I characterise as eristic, unmannerly, and deleterious to consensus building. Finally, I think there is substantial documentation for Hans' persistent mannerliness, and it would seem to me that Ronz's only objection ("You understand Peter? Great! Now both of you stop harassing me" at Hans' s Talk is that he has spoken up for me. Even jerks deserve competent representation (in the legal allegory, which wiki is not). Pete St.John (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
And before you [Ronz] invoke WP:NPA and WP:AGF, keep in mind WP:SPADE. We're struggling to draw information out of you, and getting virtually nothing, despite the fact that this is allegedly a serious issue with how this alertboard functions. If you're not being forthcoming, don't get mad at us and throw WP:AGF in our faces when we ask you to spit out a clear explanation of exactly what you're talking about. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Excuse me Ronz, I believe you completely misinterpreted my statement. Ronz, you are not giving people straight answers here, and are really talking us all in circles. Pete said so, and I told you not to cry AGF because all he's doing is saying so (that's WP:SPADE). Why are you citing WP:SPADE while accusing Pete of making a WP:POINT (which is about disruptive editing, by the way, and really has little bearing here, it's not a substitution for every time you use the phrase "make a point" you know). --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
"Ronz, you are not giving people straight answers here, and are really talking us all in circles." Sorry you feel that way. I'm trying to keep the discussion on topic. My apologies that I'm not so interested in continuing tangential topics, especially ones started by editors that admit to being unable to assume good faith. --Ronz (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I've created this AN/I regarding the aforementioned WQA. Pete St.John (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    As far as I can tell, this has nothing to do with the above conversation. Pete, unless I'm missing something, this issue about reforming the WQA has nothing to do with your complaint against Ronz. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Point taken. I saw connections: that Ronz was (as per my WQA) exemplifying his own complaint here (as I interpreted it); and that the difficulty of addressing difuse misbehaviour can be construed as a weakness in WQA. But elsewhere is probably right anyway. Anyway I appreciate your patience; it's an annoyance to me that I'm consuming so much of other people's, on account of running low on my own. Pete St.John (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The archive navbox needs editing - where is it?

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

It's bot-generated, managed by User:Miszabot. I left a message for the bot's owner (User:Misza13) to ask him/her to look into why the archive isn't showing up in the list. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, turns out the navbox is manually updated after all. See Template:Wikiquette alerts/Archive navbox - it should be fairly self-explanatory. I added an invisicomment to the main page to point users to it for future reference - Misza already took care of adding the new row. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks yet again! --Ronz (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)