Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts (3rd nomination)

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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The result of the discussion was  Withdrawn by the nominator - for what its worth, discussion was No consensus at at the time of closure. Off2riorob (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Addendum: Discussion reactivated at Requests_for_comment/dispute_resolution Please input there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts (3rd nomination)
MfDs for this page:  Okay, here's the thing. The main reason for this nomination is that this page is precisely the wrong way to go about conflict resolution - we need to be prospective (looking forward, solution-finding) rather than retrospective (complaining about what's been done wrong). Furthermore we have ample more specific places to discuss issues, such as Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for edit warring, Requests for mediation and Mediation Cabal for conflict resolution, Requests_for_comment, WP 3rd Opinion (will link when I can find it!),done various specific content, BLP, OR, COI noticeboards, and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for a bunch of other things. ....and we have too many of these pages to watch. We need to streamline and all of the above have a more defined purpose than this one, which I thus see as detrimental to morale overall by heightening rather than resolving editor conflicts.

Regarding process, I think that marking the page historical interest only and highlighting the several appropriate noticeboards to discuss issues is an option rather than just erasing it. But the activity does need to stop. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I don't see what's changed from the previous deletion discussions. WQA is a flawed filter for things which would otherwise end up elsewhere (generally ANI, because things that obviously belong at other specialist venues normally go there already). It could be improved, for example by editing the preload template Wikiquette alerts/Template. I'm tempted to add there, for example, bullet points "what I did wrong", and "what I hope to achieve here". Rd232 talk 01:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a very good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

@Tarc - Not all of them - RfCU and mediation are broader. The simplest way of thinking about it is that "is this board a net positive or negative" and being mindful of the fact we have so many boards to check...Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Created editintro Wikiquette alerts/Template2. Rd232 talk 01:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Meh. But the other venues you point out are for settling variations of content disputes.  WQA is for all intents and purposes the "you're being a dick" board, the place where people who are losing said content disputes seek their comeuppance (always wanted to use that word in a sentence).  I'd think that without this, it's all just gonna get dumped at AN/I. Tarc (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So, what, you think it should be renamed the "Boomerang Board"? ;) Rd232 talk 01:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Who is this "we" that has to watch all these places??? The idea is to try to resolve problems without admin intervention. Does it work? Usually not, but sometimes it does. Deleting this page won't change the total wikidrama at all, just move it, most likely to ANI. Gerardw (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "we" is any hitherto uninvolved editor, admin or not. many of these boards have the wiki-equivalnet of tumbleweeds blowing through them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep but admins that monitor WQA should be quick to close/redirect complaints that WQA is not suited for. That is, if its an editing dispute, its the wrong place. If its a larger problem with a user, RFCU is thataway. If it is behavior of a user that does not normally qualify for admin action, then yes, that's what WQA is for. --M ASEM  (t) 01:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, admins could not monitor WQA. Gerardw (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm not convinced that this does act as a filter; instead, disputes keep simmering and showing up at AN/I until sanctions are imposed. Less hassle for everyone just to shorten this process. Disputes that can be solved civilly already will be, via the other steps in WP:DR. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you collected statistics on this? Gerardw (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep WQA is the place for people to say, I believe X is misbehaving; what can be done about it? There is no other place to say that.  You really don't want to legitimize bringing matters to ANI that don't require admin intervention. Looie496 (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But Looie think for a second, how is complaining about someone without looking to some form of mediation or conflict resolution helpful? This backward-thinking is a problem in worsening atmosphere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "how is complaining about someone without looking to some form of mediation or conflict resolution helpful?" - er, WQA is supposed to be a form of DR: DR. Rd232 talk 03:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Umm, that is just a listing. And the note goes on to note that a minor/moderate issue might be better ignored anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "that is just a listing." - um, what? I was just providing a link to show how WQA is an established part of the DR ecosystem. It may need nurturing, but the ecosystem will not be improved by killing it, because it plays a particular role that is needed. Rd232 talk 03:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Per Gerardw (at 1:20, 2 May 2011) and Looie496 (at 1:49, 2 May 2011) UTC. We've managed to resolve some disputes there without a great deal of hassle; some with a great deal of hassle; and of course some without any resolution at all. We also end up having to redirect people to the right boards, which isn't a problem in my view, but I think that's better than more things turning up at ANI where admins start thinking "oh why did you make me read all this when it doesn't even belong here nor can I do anything about it?" On the odd occasion, I've seen admins redirect people who turn up there to WQA as well because they shouldn't have gone to ANI in the first place. And yes Cas, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out where part of the motivation for this MFD has come from, but it'll simply move that sort of thing to other venues and make matters even less pleasant for involved parties. Simply telling people to be prospective isn't going to stop the complaints from flooding in (some might call it wikihuman nature) but you really should have figured that out by now given how long you've been in your position. Any reduction in the number of disputes is probably a good thing (and better than no reduction at all), though as I've often said...if we've finally reached the point where AC does not have enough on its plate and we can start passing more matters to them more directly, please let us know (though IIRC, the last mediation effort undertaken by a few arbs failed to prevent a RFARB resurfacing within a matter of days). Maybe this is a sign that more admins need to do mediation style work as well or something. I don't know...not sure it worries me either way. But seeing we're here, can the admins and editors who would like to see more WQAs turn up at the admin noticeboards please raise their hands? Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you think my motivation is coming from Ncmvocalist but I have felt this way about this page for a long time. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, so did you actually pause to think about the practical effects of what it is you are doing before you came here? Or are we here because of this 'feeling' of yours Casliber? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Umm gee, it might make this page have (thankfully) fewer steps, what is done here which couldn't be done (better) at informal mediation? Why not concentrate our editors who are willing to help in fewer places rather than scatter them over more? Why have pages which by their very title focus on problems rather than solutions? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ...because by identifying the problem clearly to begin with, a more effective solution can be crafted to cater for that particular type of dispute/problem. Some people are not good at dealing with particular kinds of problems, but are good at dealing with other types, so this should help in that regard...you are hearing a case where this can also be said as it happens. Mere mediation is not effective enough on its own, as you should have already found out (see the rfarb I allude to above); more insight can come from several editors rather than the one or even two editors (or 'committee'). It's not just a matter of facilitating agreement between the parties either; it's about what is right for the project as well. And as to the few editors who are only willing to help in fewer places, is it really so difficult to produce a page where all of the threads are transcluded? That really ought to take care of this 'we must centralize' viewpoint. Whatever system is in place, the complaints will just keep coming in the same form, no matter how many times we hammer something else. The question: is the current system better, or would we prefer those complaints being passed over to ANI? In practice, that is what this MFD asks. If you were hoping for a different result in theory or practice, you should have tried something else instead of (or at least before) MFD. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Mark historical I've never seen anything good come of any WQA I've participated in, as a filer (I don't remember ever having done so, but I might have years ago), a commentator, or a target or a WQA. That's not a super-compelling argument against it's continuation, but if my experience is typical, I suspect the proposal might find a warmer reception than anticipated. Jclemens (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete/mark historical WQA is frequently a place for users to make accusations against each other over petty disputes. We don't need that. If a user thinks someone else is behaving poorly, they can discuss it on their talk page calmly. If the other user refuses to respond, drop it or take it to AN/I. WQA serves little real purpose (any disputes that be be resolved there can be resolved on user talk pages) and has become a place for users to attack each other. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WQA is often the most obvious place to go when a user is failing to communicate properly (or indeed at all), but the issue would be unlikely to be well-received at ANI. There is a need for something like WQA; if it doesn't work well enough, that's probably down to lack of sufficient moderation as much as anything. Rd232 talk 03:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Gerardw's right-on-the-money comment that "Deleting this page won't change the total wikidrama at all, just move it, most likely to ANI." 28bytes (talk) 04:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sympathise with views from both Casliber and Gerardw; the page serves a function, it sometimes work well, it often doesn’t. It’s going to take more than an MfD week to find consensus.  Shutting down the page feels like a knee-jerk reaction.  I studied the page once, before giving up.  I think it has value, but needs structure.  It assumes a level of good faith all round, and sometimes there is good faith all round.  When informal, voluntary dispute mediation (which this is) fails, I submit that it is probably due to unacknowledged fault on all sides.  The most obvious solution to most conflicts here is “this is a big place.  Go in different directions and find something productive to do.”  When this doesn’t work, I submit that it is probably due to unacknowledged strong POVs in conflict.  It here, with complainers and complainees in denial of their own faults pretending they don’t have their own POVs, that it becomes a tedious dramafest.  I suggest some ideas, such as:
 * (1) When a WQA thread exceeds 20kbytes, it is closed and the unhappy editors sent to an as-yet uncreated low-level dispute resolution system where the mediator’s decision is law.
 * (2) Do not archive the page, but auto-delete all old threads.  Exhaustive and meticulous record keeping, forever and publicly searchable, is not how you run informal mediation.
 * In the meantime, move this to an RFC page. It is not a deletion discussion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: "When informal, voluntary dispute mediation (which this is) fails..." That's part of the problem. Wikiquette alerts are not voluntary dispute mediation. Typically one editor "reports" another, and the other editor assumes that he must respond or Something Bad Will Happen. I think that all dispute resolution should have a requirement that the editor with the complaint must attempt to discuss the fact that he/she wishes the two editors to go to dispute resolution together to try to resolve their differences. Only if the other editor refuses or ignores the request should a unilateral request for dispute resolution be accepted. Guy Macon (talk) 06:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Guy, I think we agree that WQA could be better defined in function. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

-
 * Del per nom. WQA has long been WP-ZOO-lite, and nothing ever comes of it (or teh udder one;). 125.162.150.88 (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, disagree with the deletion rationale. WQA serves a function for dealing with minor issues that don't need admin intervention.  If it's eliminated, the drama will just wash up in ANI or somewhere else.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete This is a disgusting page, I've never seen anything good come from it, just a whole lot of bad blood. It dosen't help that it's watched by only a fraction of the people that watch other dispute prone areas, and that a good number of people that do watch it are in it for the drama. Best case, the things that get to Wikiquette now would go to mediation. "Eh" case is this spills over to AN/I, and that's fine with me because a whole lot of people will be watching to clamp down on any abuse and make sure that discussions don't turn as godawful vile as the do at Wikiquette. AN/I is bad, but Wikiquette is one of the most hostile, disfunctional places I've ever seen, anywhere, not just in Wikipedia, but anywhere.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  07:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Given that we have complaints we need to deal with them.Or at least try to . My own opinion is that we as a group do a singularly poor job of resolving interpersonsl issues, except in the rare circumstances where its just 2 people of good will talking past each other. For anything more than that, WQA accomplishes little, RfC/U accomplishes almost nothing, AN/I may accomplish something but its likely to be overkill, and the final resort to arb com is one from which nobody has ever benefitted. With rare exceptions. their method of work is to announced general principles and throw actual enforcement back to the same community that couldn't deal with it earlier. Within the context of the system WQA may do little good, but it does not harm and provides a safe please from people to express themselves. I think of it as ths sandbox of dispute resolution. If we had anything good to replace it with, then we mightconsider this, but we don't, and more than we have replacements for all the other dysfunctional procedures. I t may be disgusting, but removing it will just spread all the dirt more widely.  DGG ( talk ) 08:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, DGG, you are definitely not disgusting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: "the final resort to arb com is one from which nobody has ever benefitted", Monty Hall problem benefited greatly from being the subject of an arbcom case. Guy Macon (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as entirely useless. WQA is largely a matter of "waah, someone did X," and even when that person has done X... there's absolutely nothing to convince them not to do it again. The reality of human behaviour is that we need both carrots and sticks. As it stands, WQA increases drama without any real way to do anything; it's AN/I without any teeth. Delete it all, and redirect to Medcab or formal mediation. The latter two are effective because parties know there is someone ostensibly neutral there to listen and bring them to a meeting of the minds. → ROUX   ₪'  08:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or possibly Abstain per the comment in the previous MfD - ie I do not think a deletion debate is the appropriate venue for a discussion of this process's worth. - Chardish, 4 March 2008. Develop, improve the process - sure. But deletion doesn't make much sense. Yes, it's flawed; and yes, horrible stuff happens here. But if it were not here, it'd be elsewhere. I certainly see some evidence of useful discussion on there right now - users getting some decent advice, making some kind of progress. Even if they're being told a more appropriate, more specific venue. I think MfD isn't the place for this, at all. If you've got ideas how to improve the general dispute resolution processes - then by all means suggest them; but culling this one would not, I feel, help anything. It'll just shift the problem elsewhere.  Chzz  ► 08:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as a venue for discussions of the form "Here's the situation, could we have some uninvolved views". Sergeant Cribb (talk) 08:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I have seen plenty of useful discussions at WQA, and there is no other suitable place for minor disruptions to be discussed. Often reports do not work out the way the nominator wanted, but that is very useful in the fairly common situation where the nominator was seeking a sanction against a minor outburst to the nom's disruptive editing. When the outburst is over the top, two useful outcomes occur: the nominator learns that other people agree that their behavior is disruptive, and the over-the-top commenter learns to tone it down a bit next time. There are many cases where no apparent good outcome occurs in that no one appears to have learned anything, but IMHO often the protagonists do slowly adapt to the feedback they receive (disruptive editors pick up a few more clues about how Wikipedia works, and expletive users sometimes learn that they should use other words). It is rare for someone to say "I was wrong, and I will change", but they may nevertheless learn to change, without being forced to lose face. Also, it is useful to tell inexperienced editors that they can raise issues at WQA is they want to discuss another editor's behavior (because otherwise, the inexperienced editor will continue their unhelpful complaints on an article's talk page). ANI cannot cope with its current workload, and WQA issues need a place to be aired, at least as a first step. Johnuniq (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Attempt to Fix, if unsuccessful Mark Historical - I think WQA has been broken for years and does more harm than good, but I could be wrong. I would like WQA to work though and think we should attempt to fix it, but I don't have any magical solutions. I think this should move to an RfC to try and find possible solutions. If we are unsuccessful as a community, then we can mark it historical and refer people to other forms of WP:DR. - Hydroxonium (T•C• V ) 11:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: It is my understanding that WQA is a lower level of the dispute resolution process. One designed to draw the offending user's attention to the fact that other editors outside the area of conflict have looked over the issue and seen actionable points.  It isn't a binding process (Only Arb is binding) but it does lay the groundwork for a sustained and continual evidence of non-collegial editing which is encouraged for RFC/U and Arb.  If this foundation is taken out more of the wikidrama threads will end up at AN* and higher boughs of the dispute resolution tree Hasteur (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is a useful dispute resolution mechanism that gives users an outlet in difficult situations that don't warrant "going nuclear." It is true that often editors use this forum to air grievances that are not personal attacks. But I think that it is a good mechanism to take the heat out of protracted disputes. Figureofnine (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Honestly, WQA is like some sort of ghetto'ized AN/I, the petty things people don't want to deal with just get shunted out of sight out of mind. What it is is a tattletale board, an "editor X was mean to me!  BAWWWWWWWWWW!" outlet to drag someone to do when an editorial dispute isn't going your way...or it is going your way, and you want to keep your foot on your wiki-opponent's neck.  Hell, I was dragged there once because I quoted the "definition of insanity is doing the same thing expecting a different result" saying in a post, and someone had a hissy fit because "you called me insane!"  It has been 3 years since the last MfD closed as "keep but reform" and it hasn't really reformed.  So if whining does create more traffic at An/I as a result of getting rid of this, so be it. Tarc (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Mark historical and close down. Count me in among those that have never seen much good coming from that forum. And store some trouts for those who will soon attempt to resuscitate it as Civility/Noticeboard or the like, as has been the fashion of late. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Essentially it's just a fork of ANI, with the difference that there are normally no drastic outcomes and so editors who generally don't want to miss anything important can still leave it off their watchlists. That makes it a useful tool against information overload. To address the nominator's concerns more directly: I don't think that WQA causes or encourages the nasty situations that sometimes arise there. It's like a local drug scene or a red-light district. Close it down, and you will get the same thing elsewhere in no time. Hans Adler 16:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, with suggested behavior change Right now someone opening up a new alert sees the following:


 * "Standard questions you should cover:


 * What I did wrong (can you honestly answer "nothing"?)


 * Other dispute resolution already tried, or considered but rejected


 * What I hope to achieve here"


 * I suggest that our default behavior when someone posts an alert that does not answer the above questions should be to bounce it back to them with a notice. Something to the effect that answering these questions makes the issue much easier to resolve. Guy Macon (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Mark historical and close down I note the previous keep and reform MFD 3 years ago. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as useless! Yeah, I said that! I pretty much have to agree with everyone who says that WQA rarely accomplishes anything particularly useful. (Should we start an office pool on how long until somebody starts a WQA thread about Casliber for having started this MfD?) But I don't see much point in deleting the page. If anyone finds it unhelpful to post there, then don't post there. If anyone finds it unproductive or frustrating to watch it, then don't watch it. If anyone, having posted there, finds that it failed to address their concern, then go to AN/I or someplace else. But I haven't seen any convincing evidence that WQA actually caused harm to the project that would not have occurred if WQA had not existed, just that it has frequently failed to repair harms that were already underway. Rather than a simple delete, it would be better to (1) provide data on the problems with the current system, and (2) propose alternative methods of dealing with incivility. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Mark as historical and shut down. The noticeboard does not serve any useful function; very little seems to be resolved there. Mathsci (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * delete utterly counterproductive. Fostering a good-editing environment is simply not helped by having a place people can go to rat on other people for not editing nicely. Particularly when the board is stacked with moronic drama-whores who love to judge and patronise (oops that'll probably get me listed on the board now). Seriously, this board is used as a weapon in disputes, and never works as a means to solve them. Let it die. The way of this--Scott Mac 21:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Update - I should have thought this one out better, black/white battleground debates rarely get anything done, and barring a truckload or "deletes" this is going to end no consensus. Can someone familiar with the archiving process close this (I have to get off the computer for a few hours), and I'll refactor and open a debate (RfC) on the Dispute Resolution talk page and we'll go nice and slow with alot of structure. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Seconded. The discussion above makes it clear that a long hard look at this whole area would not come amiss.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thirded. Please someone more familiar with the procedure do this ASAP. Rd232 talk 22:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

'''The nominator has withdrawn the nomination, requested closure of the MFD, and requested an RFC instead. Please add no further !votes.'''
 * 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.