Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:54, 18 February 2007

Older discussion at: Archive 1

Use of main page

The lead paragraph of the main page indicates that discussion of issues don't belong: This page is not the place to discuss any real or perceived Wikiquette breaches. What is the feeling on moving other editor's comments to this talk page? And what about removing sigs/extra info from the main page?
brenneman 03:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Generally, I'm disinclined to refactor anything from the front page. Stuff that comes here is usually fairly low-grade upsets. Moving people's comments around, especially to other pages, is likely to inflame a simmering situation. Discussion, if it occurs, can occasionally provide a brief respite from the relevant talk page, and sometimes that seems to be all that is needed. It doesn't really do anyone any harm, and 'enforcing' procedure is often a less sensitive way to proceed. As for sigs etc, well, I don't really know why that point is on the front page, since there's the history anyway. -Splash 04:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking the exact reverse. ^_^ I care less about policy than about outcomes: My impression was that this was often used as a place for a "free kick" at another user, as opposed to "here's where a problem exists, please have a look". If an editor is being a jerk, telling us so isn't required, we can see it when we examine their contributions. If they aren't being a jerk, seeing themselves called a jerk only inflames things. Leaving comments unsigned could be seen as one way of encouraging leaving only links/diffs.
brenneman 05:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. So perhaps we should very gently move the comments to the talk page, under the date's heading and leave a hyper-emollient and hypo-allergenic parenthetical message saying we did so, and sign it. We should say at the same time that this is not a forum for discussion — we will come to you. Sigs, well, it's fairly academic, but an addition to the baby-soft message would be ok. With the page history around though, it's more than a little bit pointless. I'll see if I can refactor the front page a bit to make it less amorphous, without changing the content, to make things a bit clearer. -Splash 00:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

However, some judgement would be needed in what I said above. The first example currently under August 31 has a response by ThomasK — that's perfectly harmless and could be allowed to stand as it gives some additional context and isn't really discussion. -Splash 00:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, and I like the changes to the main page. I might like the "we'll come to you" be bigger and bolder, but the addition about checking your own behaviour is excellent. - brenneman 00:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Purpose of this page

In the larger scheme of things, I'd like to see this page used both to head off things prior to RfC and for the kind of low-level hostility that might never get to RfC but is damaging none the less. Thought / comments?- brenneman 00:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making. But as much as I do, I think that was the original intention. Maurreen (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

What I'm thinking is:

• Some people seem to respond well to a polite "Please don't do that." Their behavior would probably never make an RfC, but can make lots of people pretty unhappy if they aren't told to stop. Some people are creeps, WQA may actually have a negative impact on their behavior.
• It can also be quite hard to tell if placing a message here has had any impact. The one time I used this seemed to do nothing.
• If it were more clear (in some way) how / if these were actioned, it might help in avoiding over warning people in the first category, and help document evidence for those people in the second.

Is that more clear? brenneman 05:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the page has had any effect; I haven't used it. But you might have had a similar situation as I once had with an article RFC -- as far as I know, no one responded via the RFC. I think sometimes people list things, but don't respond to listings by other people.

I'm not sure what you mean about "actioned." Do you have a more-specific suggestion? Maurreen (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Using this page as a replacement for WP:PAIN

This system seems to be a much better way of handling abuse issues than WP:PAIN has been. Should WP:PAIN be redirected here? --Barberio 12:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose While similar, Wikiquette alerts seems a little more informal, and more in the way of getting outside parties to help in dispute resolution, whereas PAIN, as designed, is supposed to be for ongoing complaints serious enough that admin intervention is required.

• Comment I would suggest that a link to Wikiquette alerts be added to the top of PAIN, pointing out that if admin intervention is not required, but you want to get outside views, to try WP:WQA instead. MartinRe 13:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There is already an existing process to call for admin action, WP:RFC/USER. I don't see a reason to split effort over multiple processes. WP:WQA serves the function of "informal, quick and non-administrative", WP:RFC/USER serves the function of calling attention from admin. WP:PAIN tries to straddle the two. --Barberio 14:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Nope, WP:RFC/USER doesn't call for admin action, it is requesting comments, not actions, and from any user, not admins in particular. It's more like a formal version of here. I do agree that PAIN is a little out of place, for something that listed under WP:NPA as the last resort, it's far easier to lodge a complaint there than any of the previous steps recommended. (correction to my previous comment on talk:PAIN, the other steps are only suggested, not required as I implied by "must be tried", but they do apply to personal attacks, and not just content dispute) Regards, MartinRe 15:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for new lead

JA: How about this: "Wikiquette alerts are about as useful as crying in your beer — except for the part about the beer." Hey, I don't mean it. I'm just goofing around. Jon Awbrey 21:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Instructions are not being followed

• A single link to the problem or issue as you see it (for example, a single posting or section of a talk page).
• Label the comment neutrally but do not sign and do not use names (type ~~~~~, which gives only a timestamp).
• Please avoid embarking on a discussion of the points raised on this page. Carry on discussing it wherever you originally were — editors responding to posts here will come to you!

If you look at this list, almost every post is violating at least 2 of the 3. Anyway to make more clear point number 2 and 3Eagle talk 20:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Who is responsible for archiving the main page?

Can anyone manually archive the page? I archived an old request, but I didn't see my edit in the edit history which makes me think that I'm not supposed to archive requests myself. --Inahet 19:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been thinking we need to bot it. Does anyone have an objection to making this a EssjayBot II archived page? KillerChihuahua 21:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If it would archive any section that is older than 7 days without a comment, that would be fine; one tricky aspect is that archiving has been by month. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Please use English" template

In case anyone is interested, I have created a polite template reminding users to use the English language in their talk page comments. You can view and edit the template at Template:Useenglish. —Psychonaut 21:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Since the template mentions Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines, I strongly recommend you also post a note on the talk page for those guidelines. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this page needed?

This page much reminds me of the thankfully deleted WP:PAIN and WP:RFI. Am I missing something? Is there a reason why this is of any more utility than any of of those deleted wikilawyering boards? Please advise. --02:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)