Misplaced Pages

talk:Civility: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:01, 12 November 2009 editBrews ohare (talk | contribs)47,831 edits →RfC← Previous edit Revision as of 06:55, 14 November 2009 edit undoMiszaBot II (talk | contribs)259,776 editsm Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 21d) to Misplaced Pages talk:Civility/Archive 15.Next edit →
Line 28: Line 28:
}} }}
__TOC__ __TOC__

== Proposed insertion on one-line Edit Summaries ==

I have added a section to ], , ], ] that parallels the insert made here on ] by Rd232. TenOfAllTrades has reverted all these additions.

Here is an example of the proposed insertion:

:''' Use of WP:POV in one-line Edit Summaries'''
:* Edit summaries are relatively short comments (so potentially subject to misinterpretation, or to oversimplification), cannot be changed after pressing Save, and often are written in haste, particularly if there is an edit war brewing or in progress. Especially when things are getting heated, remember to explain your edit.
:* Explain yourself. Not sufficiently explaining edits can be perceived as uncivil, whether that's the editor's intention or not. Use good edit summaries, and use the talk page if the edit summary doesn't provide enough space or if a more substantive debate is likely to be needed.
:* In short: Use of '''WP:POV''' as a shorthand in one-line Edit Summaries justifying reversion may prove offensive to the reverted editor. If a clear statement of the reason for labeling a reversion '''WP:POV''' cannot be fit into the one-line Edit Summary, a Talk page justification that explains matters is preferable.

You may wish to modify it or comment upon it. ] (]) 15:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

:Each reverted within minutes by different editors, on the basis it doesn't belong there. Sorry, got to agree with them. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
:No, 10 didn't revert them all -- I got at least one of them. If you couldn't get conensus to put it in here, why did you think it was a good idea to put it in all the other places instead? --] (]) 15:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
::]: The added material by Rd232 was accepted here on ], so I don't understand your remark about "You couldn't get consensus here". ] (]) 15:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
:::"Added" != "accepted".--] (]) 15:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the editors that have removed this from all the other pages. Rd has added here that editors should use as much description as possible when deleting/reverting. And that is about as much as we can do. Adding it to every policy/guideline is not going to make it mandatory, or force everyone to follow it. It is in WP:CIVIL, and we can only hope people will follow it in the future. (Changes to policies/guidelines do not immediately affect everything on WP) ] (]) 15:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
::::"POV" is indeed one of the more problematic short-hands, because it can easily shade into (or appear to shade into) questioning the good faith of people disagreeing with you. The point may bear making in ] or ], but it needs doing right. ] for instance doesn't seem to have any guidance on use of the term "POV", which might be helpful (and ] doesn't really address that either). ] <sup>]</sup> 16:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

:]: As the material is copied from Rd232's addition to ], it in no way suggests that it be mandatory. All that repeating it does is make it readily visible to those who are not going to search all of WP for guidance. ] (]) 15:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
::I actually have a problem with the concept behind this... sometimes a blunt edit summary is both apporiate and acceptable. If someone adds what is clearly OR to an article, I see nothing wrong removing it with an edit summary that says "please see ]". It may not be all warm and fuzzy, but I don't see such a summary as being uncivil. ] (]) 15:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
:::It depends on the context - if it's well established that there is a dispute about whether something is OR or not, then that edit summary could easily, and not unreasonably, be considered uncivil. Anyway the relevant part of my addition to WP:CIVIL is carefully worded to not equate brevity with incivility: "Explain yourself. Not sufficiently explaining edits can be perceived as uncivil, whether that's the editor's intention or not. Use good edit summaries, and use the talk page if the edit summary doesn't provide enough space or if a more substantive debate is likely to be needed." ] <sup>]</sup> 15:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
:::Reply to Blueboar: I think you mean that you did not intend the summary to be uncivil. However, if you spent a few hours preparing the material and digging up sources, I think you can imagine a reversion like "Please see ]" is going to be infuriating. It is even more so because any history with WP has exposed you to editors who ''do not read'' the material and project their own malformed ideas upon the contribution that lead them to "Please see ]". ''If'' they had to explain just what was WP:OR they ''might'' actually read the contribution. Even further, if they read it and discovered the source of their initial false interpretation, they might actually be able to assist the contributor to phrase things more clearly. ] (]) 16:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
::::What you're describing sounds like it needs talk page discussion anyway, so it makes relatively little difference whether the person who thinks it's OR initiates it or the person who thinks it isn't. And probably the latter is more motivated and better positioned to kick off the debate. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::Yes, it does require discussion. You're right. However, the reverting editor should begin the discussion, and the idea here is to encourage that that happens. It is preferable to start discussion in a good mood. If the editor reverted by "Please see ]" is thinking: "This @#$%& editor might stop and read the material before giving me the finger." there is a good chance that, if ''they'' start the discussion, things will escalate, because the reverting editor will pick up the tone instead of the content. ] (]) 16:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::There's no reason for the reverted editor to think that the reverting editor hasn't read it. ]. And even if they think it hasn't been read carefully enough, or misunderstood, there's no reason to be uncivil about it. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
::From my experience, when someone adds material that is clearly in violation of a policy or guideline to an article, more often than not the problem is that the adding editor ''hasn't'' read the policy involved. An edit summary of "please see WP:XXX" not only politely explains ''why'' the material is being reverted, it politely points the offending editor to the policy or guideline that ''explains'' why it was reverted. If they need further clarification, they can ask. ] (]) 18:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
:To be clear, I only reverted one of the additions (to the essay ). The other three additions were reverted by three other distinct editors: , , . I believed &ndash; and still believe &ndash; that there's no need to append an essentially-identical boilerplate note to every other policy and guideline on Misplaced Pages that boils down to, "Be considerate in edit summaries. If you can't explain yourself clearly in the edit summary, use the talk page". That's a matter that's covered quite adequately in ], ], and ]. Attempting to suppress citation of ], ], ], and ] in edit summaries could be misinterpreted as an effort to overturn the long established editing principles in ] and ]. ](]) 19:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

== Proposed addition to WP:Civil ==

{{archive top}}
There is objection to repeating the WP:Civil text on other guideline pages. Therefore, in ], I'd like to tack the following point onto the :
:''Proposed addition to ]'':
* Use of guideline abbreviations such as ] as a shorthand in one-line Edit Summaries justifying reversion may prove offensive to the reverted editor, particularly in the case of sourced contributions. If a clear statement of the reason for labeling a reversion ], ], ], ], ] and so forth cannot be fit into the one-line Edit Summary, a Talk page explanation of the evaluation is encouraged because it is less likely to generate heated debate on the Talk page. ] (]) 16:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This addition could be linked on other guideline pages. What do you think about this addition? Maybe you could suggest some rewording? ] (]) 16:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

;Reason for proposal:
Reversion of contributions that required some care to assemble is likely to result in Talk page discussion. It is preferable to start discussion in a good mood. For this reason, the reverting editor should begin this discussion, and the idea here is to encourage that that happens. If the editor reverted by "Please see ]" is thinking: "This @#$%& editor might stop and read the material before giving me the finger." there is a good chance that, if ''they'' start the discussion, things will escalate, because the reverting editor will pick up the tone instead of the content. ] (]) 17:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

;Comments:

*'''Oppose''' I think Rd232's current version is sufficient. Again, just because we add it here doesn't mean everyone on WP will suddenly begin to, or even have to, start using detailed edit summaries or explanations. We just hope they will. ] (]) 16:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
:Reply to ]: The proposal by Rd232 doesn't explicitly address this matter, although it may be implied. Of course, you are right that this suggestion can be ignored, and stating clearly what the recommendation is does not insure the recommendation will be followed. However, a clear statement is more likely to be followed than one that leaves it to the imagination. ] (]) 17:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', instruction creep.--] (]) 16:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Sometimes these policy abbreviations are entirely sufficient to civilly justify a reversion. Not needed. --] (]) 17:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
:Reply to ]: The proposal leaves it up to the reverting editor just how they will handle the matter. The proposal simply suggests a process that is more likely to be amicable. ] (]) 17:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - the point is worth making perhaps (though we're getting into ]y territory) but not in this way. How about adding something (addition to current page in italics) "Explain yourself. Not sufficiently explaining edits can be perceived as uncivil, whether that's the editor's intention or not. ''Relying merely on references to policy without saying how or why it applies may appear insufficient explanation.'' Use good edit summaries, and use the talk page if the edit summary doesn't provide enough space or if a more substantive debate is likely to be needed." ] <sup>]</sup> 17:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
:How about: "Relying merely on references to policy such as ], ], ''etc.'' without saying how or why they apply may appear insufficient explanation." I'd go for that. ] (]) 17:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
*'''Oppose:''' PLEASE look at the history behind this proposal described in the archived RfA above, including the comments of disinterested Admin ]. In fact, the content that the proposer kept trying to insert into the ] article has been under discussion since at least March 2009, and the near-unanimous consensus is that the proposer's cited sources ''do not'' support his position. Further, he is trying to change policy after-the-fact to influence a pending arbitration to which he is a party. Now he has opened 2 new discussion topics here about the subject of his failed RfA, including a second RfA, and he has attempted do modify other policies and guidelines that are at issue in the arbitration. He has also complained about Jehochman's and another editor's comments in the closed RfA on the talk pages of 2 Arbitrators and the Clerk, without disclosing that he posted the same complaint on 2 other talk pages. This is ]. Enough is enough! ] ] 17:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
:Finell can you kindly remain germane to this simple RfC? You are stating your opinions regarding matters that are still under review as though they are facts. They also have no bearing here. ] (]) 17:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
*'''Strong Oppose''' deja vu... See my edit summary for full discussion. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 17:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': Instruction creep. A short polite edit summary pointing to a policy page is enough. If the editor who has "had all his hard work removed" does not understand how the policy or guideline being cited applies, he can ask for clarification. Pointing out a policy violation when one occurs is not incivility. ] (]) 18:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
:Reply to Blueboar: Of course, you are right that it needn't be uncivil. But if "all his hard work" is reverted, the reverting editor ''knows'' they are going to be called on it. So what does the reverting editor gain by avoiding explaining the evaluation? My tendentious suggestion is that what gained is only postponement of the labor of the actual ''articulation'' of the evaluation, that is, some mental effort to straighten out thoughts that, in fairness, should be done anyway, and will have to be done eventually anyhow. What may be lost is the opportunity for amicable discussion. That possibility is enhanced when the squirrels come out of the woodwork and pile into the debate. What also may be lost is a constructive relationship with the contributor. ] (]) 19:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
::My feeling is that a brief edit summary such as "please see WP:XXX" ''is'' a perfectly acceptable explanation/articulation etc. of why the material was removed. We ''hope'' the adding editor will read the policy page being pointed to and say to himself, "Oh... ''now'' I see what the problem was... gee, I wish I had read this policy page ''before'' I wasted all that time and effort." On the other hand, if (after reading the policy or guideline that is pointed to) he ''still'' does not understand what the problem is, he has many options available to get further clarification... he can ask at the policy talk page, he can ask on the article talk page... he can even ask the removing editor directly. The point is, by pointing to WP:XXX in the edit summary, the removing editor has done his part. The removing editor has clearly and politely explained what the problem is. What happens next is up to those who wish the material to be returned. ] (]) 19:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
:::"Please see WP:XXX" may encompass what you have in mind, but it is not specific. Your view is that is not a problem: the contributor simply can ask you what you meant, and the contributor will have no problem with that. Your scenario does happen of course, but less pleasant scenarios also arise, and the proposal tries to avoid them, because fires are harder to put out than to prevent. ] (]) 20:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
::::My view is that a polite summary pointing to the policy is specific ''enough''. I made the first step... I explained my removal. What happens next is up to the other editor. ] (]) 20:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''. See ], and the discussion above. Even ] acknowledges that experienced users will often use abbreviations in edit summaries and offers WP:OR as a specific example. (That same page also encourages editors to use the talk page if they cannot explain their edits clearly in the edit summary field. Really, that's all we need to say, and it's already in.) The presence of editors who get unnecessarily incensed because they don't understand the ] cycle or Misplaced Pages in general can't be fixed by modifying this policy. ](]) 19:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
:Reply to ]: Hey thanks for bringing ] to my attention: I didn't know about that. You'll notice it says "some editors will see it as a challenge, so be considerate and patient". That is what this proposal is about too: what exactly is gained by avoiding Talk page discussion with the one-line Edit Summary when a Talk page discussion is going to happen anyway? Is it some idea that a debate is in the offing and it is better to deliver the first punch with the one-line Edit Summary to get the opposition off balance? Maybe an irritated contributor is easier to beat down with irrelevant barbs and putdowns? I'd guess a more cooperative attitude works better, and that is more likely with a Talk page explanation at the outset. ] (]) 19:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

*I love how this is a request for comment, and this is a comment section but yet everyone loves to start their '''COMMENT''' by VOTING, like anyone asked for a raise of hands, and Misplaced Pages is specifically not a democracy, I can be the only one supporting this and I can still win because (if) my points are more logically consistent with Misplaced Pages's function. So, here is my '''comment'''- Quoting policy is '''NEVER''' an acceptable alternative to discussing and coming to a consensus, to arbitrarily tell someone "see WP:OR" or "read WP:V" or "this violates the POV policy" is simply arrogant (so is simply telling someone their proposal is wrong because it is "wp:creep", I find it creepy to dismiss someone by simply saying that and not explaining WHY you think something is not needed, WP:Creep is a cop-out for those who cant debate and write more than a sentance). Our policies and guidelines arent laws written in stone that cover every possible problem and event that may happen in Misplaced Pages and must be adhered to the letter. In that one editor's opinion the edit may be a violation of OR, but that may not be everyone's opinion (that is why we have noticeboards for OR, RS, etc; and the various Village Pumps and articles each have a talk page, because everyone sees things differently). If you disagree with someone about something, and its not clear vandalism, perhaps explaining your '''opinion''' more thoroughly would be beneficial without the arrogance of telling them "I know the rules better than you, go read them and try to become as smart as me before editing again" which is all that gets across when people resort to quoting the "rules" without explaining their own personal interpretations. Quoting rules= bad; discussing things civilly= good. That is my '''opinion'''.] (]) 19:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
::Yeah... voting is evil... but once someone starts to !Vote, there is a tendancy for everyone else to do so. To discuss... Binky, I think you are wrong here. If someone adds something that is a violation of "the rules", I think the ''best'' thing to do is point them to the "rules" in question, so they understand ''why'' you are removing their work... otherwise they ''might'' take it personally and think your removal was for no good reason. IE... Pointing to rules with civilly = BEST. ] (]) 20:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== RfC ==

The closing of the above request for comment is an unjustifiable abuse, interferes with a normal WP procedure for no reason, and should be subject to severe censure. ] (]) 20:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

:I think closing was probably a little premature... but on the other hand I think it is quite clear that the proposed addition will not gain consensus. So let me ask... what purpose does keeping the RfC open serve? ] (]) 21:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

::]: Thank you for raising this point. Already Rd232 has suggested an addition to ] that I find satisfactory. There is no need that the proposal be accepted as it stands: it is a request for comment, a brainstorming session. The idea that somehow this is a threatening situation that must be closed down as soon as possible is weird. I'd like to hear what others have to say: a few minutes is hardly enough time. ] (]) 21:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
::: A few hours for what is a repeat of the previous RfC is more than enough considering you shouldn't have raised it in the first place. You should have tried further discussion before starting another RfC, and starting another, nearly identical one, so soon (mere "minutes") after the previous one was closed, is ]. It is not about it being threatening, it is about it being pointless. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 21:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
::::Oppose from me too. - Dank (]) 19:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

:::::i don't think it is enough. if some editors here have encountered the question numerous times before, that does not mean some other editors have. also, if it is ''deja vu'', hmmm, why does the question keep re-appearing if the answer is so obvious, or if the current solution is so good? ] (]) 21:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


== Duplication == == Duplication ==
Line 124: Line 45:
::Well, it was an ill-chosen name, certainly (since it apparently sanctions calling people dicks, which is extremely uncivil in itself), but I agree that a brief and to the point policy like that is what we need. I think there's a sliding scale rather than any clear boundary between incivility and personal attacks - having them both on one page, and without vast quantities of superfluous verbiage, will simply make it quicker and clearer for people to find out what our standards are in this area, and for editors to identify things that are missing (like the text that Johnuniq wonders about).--] (]) 07:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC) ::Well, it was an ill-chosen name, certainly (since it apparently sanctions calling people dicks, which is extremely uncivil in itself), but I agree that a brief and to the point policy like that is what we need. I think there's a sliding scale rather than any clear boundary between incivility and personal attacks - having them both on one page, and without vast quantities of superfluous verbiage, will simply make it quicker and clearer for people to find out what our standards are in this area, and for editors to identify things that are missing (like the text that Johnuniq wonders about).--] (]) 07:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


==Misplaced Pages's code of conduct== == Misplaced Pages's code of conduct ==

Do we agree that ] ''is'' Misplaced Pages's code of conduct (as the link currently in the first line of this page seems to imply)? If so, surely it should at least be marked as a policy? (Or perhaps that's another page that could be merged with this one?)--] (]) 13:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Do we agree that ] ''is'' Misplaced Pages's code of conduct (as the link currently in the first line of this page seems to imply)? If so, surely it should at least be marked as a policy? (Or perhaps that's another page that could be merged with this one?)--] (]) 13:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


Revision as of 06:55, 14 November 2009

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Civility page.
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 21 days 
See WP:PROPOSAL for Misplaced Pages's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages.
The initial Misplaced Pages:Civility essay was largely authored by User:Anthere and others at meta:Incivility (history, Jan-Feb. 2004). It was copied here and put into substantive form ("Civility") by User:Stevertigo (Feb. 2004), who earlier raised the issue on wikien-l. & (Oct. 4, 2003). In codified form, it was thereafter referenced as a statement of principle and soon after considered "policy."
Long before the creation of the formal policy, User:Larry Sanger raised the issue of "making more civil," , & (Nov. 2002) after reading User:The Cunctator's essay "How to destroy Misplaced Pages" (Mar. 2002). User:Jimbo Wales picked up on Larry's point (the last time they said anything nice to each other), and thereafter User:Ed Poor and others kept it alive, until the need for a formal policy came about in late 2003.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Civility page.
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 21 days 

Duplication

The current version of the page has some duplication between the section WP:CIVIL#Avoiding incivility and the section immediately above. - Dank (push to talk) 21:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

can you be more precise? And what do you think about Verbal's removal of this material? DTTR may not be policy, but it's still a valid point here and a useful reference, and I don't the existence of welcome messages invalidates the injunction to be careful with template messages. And I don't really see why the injunction to explain one's edits sufficiently (as context dictates) should be removed either. Rd232 22:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Reverted then, in absence of justification for removal. Rd232 08:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
One problem was that the last bullet point of WP:CIVIL#Avoiding incivility was duplicated word-for-word in the introduction; I just removed it, but feel free to revert, or to delete it from the introduction instead. - Dank (push to talk) 23:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Much of it was duplicated, but not all of it, so Dank's edit has removed some content. Perhaps either the bullet point or the introduction should be rewritten, rather than simply deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Page too long

Surely we don't need this many words to tell people to be nice to each other? I'd be for doing some major weeding of this text, to reveal the main points clearly. Any objections in principle? There could also be a bit of merging with other pages - do we really need WP:NPA as a separate page from this one?--Kotniski (talk) 11:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I have not paid attention to this page so I won't get involved much at the moment, but my initial thoughts are I can't see the benefit from removing text. I think that CIVIL does need to be a different page from NPA because they are different, and editors sometimes need to be directed towards one of the two pages: if they were combined, an editor who commits a minor civility breach may end up reading about NPA and that may leave the editor thinking that the referral was inappropriate (i.e. the incivil editor might think "the person who directed me to this page is nuts because it's mostly about vicious stuff that is nothing to do with me").
Where is the text that mentions that edit summaries and talk page comments should focus on edits, and not on editors? I do think that the purpose of CIVIL should be clarified in the lead. We don't have this policy because it gives us a warm glow; we have it to foster collaboration that builds the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Once upon a time, we had a short version of both WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Unfortunately, the sensitive ears of some Wikipedians couldn't tolerate us having a page called Don't be a dick, so this core policy had to be moved to meta. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, it was an ill-chosen name, certainly (since it apparently sanctions calling people dicks, which is extremely uncivil in itself), but I agree that a brief and to the point policy like that is what we need. I think there's a sliding scale rather than any clear boundary between incivility and personal attacks - having them both on one page, and without vast quantities of superfluous verbiage, will simply make it quicker and clearer for people to find out what our standards are in this area, and for editors to identify things that are missing (like the text that Johnuniq wonders about).--Kotniski (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's code of conduct

Do we agree that WP:Etiquette is Misplaced Pages's code of conduct (as the link currently in the first line of this page seems to imply)? If so, surely it should at least be marked as a policy? (Or perhaps that's another page that could be merged with this one?)--Kotniski (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Policy report for Signpost

The reaction to this report on recent changes to WP:SOCK was good. I propose we do the same kind of report on changes to WP:CIVILITY since maybe September 1, since there have been a lot of recent changes. The monthly changes are available at Misplaced Pages:Update/1/Deletion policy changes, July 2009 to December 2009. Say anything you like in your report, and I'll do my best to work in a sentence or two into the Signpost summary from everyone who participates, and I hope many Signpost readers will follow the link and read everything you said. My summary will be available at least a day before the deadline so that anyone can edit it. Feel free to add your report below. The SOCK reports were quite good; if you're stumped for ideas, check them out. - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Responses by User1
Responses by User2
Responses by User3
Responses by User4
Responses by User5
Responses by User6
Summary for Signpost

RfC on dealing with controversy

I've drafted an essay here intended as a paradigm to mitigate disputes on Talk pages. I would appreciate some input. Brews ohare (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)