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

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Comment 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Note: Listed at WP:ANI#Regarding Wikiquette Alerts depreciation for further discussion regarding depreciation. seicer | talk | contribs 03:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: WP:WQA defuses a lot of problems that otherwise would require administrator intervention. Dlabtot (talk) 04:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]