Wikipedia talk:Wikiquette assistance/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Dispute resolution noticeboard proposal

I have opened a final proposal on the Village pump to implement some changes to the dispute resolution process. The initial discussion for the idea can be found here, and the proposal outlining the changes that would be made if enacted are are outlined here. In summary, this proposal would create a new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, move dispute-related ANI threads that don't belong there, to DRN and for a trial, deprecated WQA and the Content noticeboard with these sorts of discussions moved to DRN. Full details on the proposal are at the relevant pages. Thank you. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 08:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is it "final"? Gerardw (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It's going through a one month trial now. But it doesn't look like it's best place for dealing with obnoxious insulting editors who need to be encouraged to be civil, like this Alerts page 'is supposed to do... CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, we need some place to effectively deal with such editors. Maybe DRN can become that? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That's my plan. Deal with legitimate issues properly, close threads that are opened without justification "This user undid my (spammy) edit and they are a vandal" etc. :) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking about a place where users are warned for a first offence of uncivil/disrespectful behavior, and blocked for increasingly longer periods for subsequent offences. Is that not DRN? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Depends really. I see it more as a place to resolve conduct and content disputes (that don't fit into other forums) in a reasonable, structured manner, as opposed to the mess that is WQA at the moment. Normal sanctions that are applied at WQA would apply at DRN, but it's important that DRN has some teeth. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It has been a while since I've encountered uncivil/disrespectful language and/or behavior directed at me, but it has in the past, and the downplaying of the significance by others, and the lack of ramifications for those engaged in the behavior, was incredibly demoralizing. I see it with others time and time again, and usually nothing happens. It's the accepted norm, especially if it is somehow justified. Nothing should justified uncivil or disrespectful behavior. The Wikipedia experience would be so improved if that was effectively enforced. I really don't understand the reluctance, unless people just want to retain the right to be insulting for themselves. Anyway, I hope DRN will facilitate this. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. There is never any reason to use rude language and name-calling in Wikipedia discussion. Why should there be? We have a strong protocol set up for dealing with vandals and edit-warriors, and a ladder from mediation to arbitration for conflict resolution. Those are our avenues. Name-calling like we're 10 years old? Aside from being unnecessary among intelligent, mature adults who can use diplomatic language, that kind of hostility cannot help Wikipedia in its quest to be more inclusive.

If we allow Wikipedia to be a place where bullying language, verbal intimidation and juvenile name-calling isn't dealt with in no uncertain terms, Wikipedia will come to be regarded a hostile, insular, unwelcoming place. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

DRN stage 2

The dispute resolution noticeboard has been undergoing a one month trial to see how it works, and has had some success. As part of the original proposal, I suggested another one-month trial after that, closing WP:WQA and WP:CNB, and redirecting posts to DRN to see if the new board can handle these posts more effectively. The proposal is located [1]. Your input would be appreciated. Thank you. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

WQA has been dropped from the proposal, but the discussion made me think of something that I thought I'd raise here. Given the perennial criticisms of WQA as allegedly not delivering what it allegedly promises, I wonder whether the name sets expectations that are part of the problem. It really isn't about "alerts", in the sense of matters requiring urgent attention. It's more like a place to get help from uninvolved people. I wonder if something more along the lines of "Wikiquette Help Desk", or something with similar connotations, would be better. On the other hand, I realize that it's hard to change a long-used name, but I figured I'd suggest this anyway. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I generally hold the opinion that this is probably the worst-named board of any type on Wikipedia. While I fully agree with the users who defended WQA in the discussion, there's no denying that it has a pretty bad reputation. Of course, it's naturally an unpleasant place sometimes, but the name does have a very negative sound to it. It really isn't about alerts in the least, it's just a place of informal discussion. In addition, the name is also inflammatory sometimes. In many of these disputes, both parties have legitimate viewpoints and just lose their temper. Both are often guilty of incivility. Yet when one comes here about the other, there's a air of righteousness around the person who "filed an alert" and the other party is made out to be the "bad guy" because they had an "alert" filed against them. Overall just a sub-par atmosphere for productive DR. I'd like to see a more positive sounding name like "Etiquette help desk" or "Etiquette [discussion] board" or something like that. Yes, I do hold the opinion that we should use "Etiquette" instead of the ridiculous word "Wikiquette". Swarm ^X 11:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and either "Etiquette" or the quirkier version would be fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquette has the disadvantage of being barely pronounceable. --Danger (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Refactor proposal

Concur with above discussion that "Wikiquette alert" is pejorative and misleading term. I propose:

• Renaming the board to Wikiquette assistance. This better describes the ideal function of the board and has the benefit of keeping the same initialism to avoid confusion.
• Change report in the instructions to request. This shifts the focus from "reporting the bad guy" to "I am asking for help."

We should put the following at the top of the very page.

Wikiquette Assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated incivility can request assistance from other editors in peaceably resolving a situation.

Note that as it is the top of the page is probably too long; various alerts requests in the past indicate editors don't fully read the directions before starting a new thread; trimming the instructions will increase the probability they get read. Gerardw (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, sounds good to me. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 11:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Support: Good. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 23:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Support from me too. There are multiple ways one could go about this, all of them very appropriate, including this one. The important thing, as noted, is to deprecate the idea of "alerts". --Tryptofish (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, sounds like a good idea. --Darkwind (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Mostly done

Just awaiting help on how to move the archive pages en masse. Wikipedia:Help_desk#Move_multiple_pages. Gerardw (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Very nice to see this change. I've also updated the 'active alerts' heading on the page as well as {{WQA-notice}} to reflect the depreciation of "alerts". If anyone can think of other places that still read "Wikiquette alerts", please change them. Swarm ^{u | t} 01:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. Gerardw (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

At the ANI page, on top where it says "Are you in the right place?" it still refers to WQA.—Biosketch (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

That's been fixed now. Thanks for pointing it out (which led me to post at WT:ANI.) --Tryptofish (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't delete discussions

The concept that requests which don't meet some standard of formatting or notification can just be deleted is contrary to WP:TPG -- we don't refactor editors good faith's edits. If they fail to notify other parties, politely ask them to. If the don't provide diffs, ask them to. Volunteers here should model helpfulness and civility. Gerardw (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

We do not refactor them, but surely, we can ask them to refactor it themselves - there is nothing in WP:TPG that says otherwise.--Cerejota (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

There is. See WP:REDACT. Gerardw (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

At the time of the request, no one had replied, however, REDACT even allows one to request permission to redact other's comments. You can disagree with the request to re-submit, but policy was not broken, and neither for that matter was common sense (ie, getting a better report is conducive to a better solution - what we should be striving for).--Cerejota (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

My common sense is the purpose of WQA has been to help users requesting assistance. Telling them their report isn't good enough isn't helping. Gerardw (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes, it is not helpful, sometimes, it is. Accepting any and all comers is unfair to both the reporter and the reportee: often the issues should be handles elsewhere. For example, I have closed a number of reports for these reasons, directing towards other boards or holding up the issues, and in those cases the results were correct: one case resulted in indef blocking of the reported editor, the other was a sockpuppet that was blocked as such. It does no justice to the process if WQA is seen as a way to WP:ADMINSHOP or to quietly organize pileons, or if issues that require more active admin attention linger at WQA un-addressed.--Cerejota (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

An indef blocking is a failure. The goal of WQA is for all parties to walk away as productive editors, not pick winners and losers. An SPI can be reported to WP:SPI without closing discussion here. Gerardw (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is it a failure if the reasons for the indef were not Wikiquette issues? WQA should be for Wikitteque issues, and nothing else. For example, trying to talk it out with a sockpuppet in an active investigation doesn't strike me as productive for any of the involved - sockpuppetry is the very definition of bad faith.--Cerejota (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

More detailed template to solve "piling on" problem?

In the past I have come here a couple times with very specific complaints and diffs about outright insults and the person would reply with paragraph after paragraph of vague and inaccurate accusations about all sorts of non-Wikiquette related alleged or even rumored! behaviors, with little or no proof, except maybe a link to some long discussion that was hard to follow. And thus nothing was done, not even a polite note on the user's talk page. So I didn't bother to seek help here for my most recent problems with repeated insults related to my one block in five years which happened in January. Which encouraged ever worsening behavior by the user.

However, I did have a minor specific issue with the user I brought to WP:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and I found that the more structured template for entering information at least provided some form. (Also there seem to be better monitors there who kept things more on topic, though perhaps that is now the case here.)

Now if only this assistance page had such a template. And both WP pages put some word limit on counter-accusations on unrelated policy issues and demand diffs for them -or even requested they make their own separate complaints on an appropriate noticeboard - in the template. It might help solve the off topic "piling on" problem. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Good idea! I will try to come up with something.--Cerejota (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

While I think the template here does need to be a bit more detailed, ala the one at WP:DRN, the discussion of word limits here focused on problems with number of word limitations and people recommended more assertive collapsing of back and forths on off topic material. Obviously by non-involved parties. CarolMooreDC 14:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

WQA has traditionally been fairly unstructured. It should be a place where it is easy for folks to get assistance, not a overly rigid bureaucratic forum. Gerardw (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Structure is not the same as bureaucracy. I am reverting the changes, because the structure is helpful' - it makes people stop to think and show care before raising a report. And traditionally? WQA traditionally has been an WP:ADMINSHOP for pile-ons, which it what Carol's point above is about. I am not sold on any specifics, but the old structure was awful, as were the explanations and "rules" - if you ar einterested in finding other methods, lets discuss them, but I find it hardly bureaucratic. --Cerejota (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Further explanation

Principle:

1. The change from "alerts" to "assistance" is awesome, but in my view incomplete.
2. At all other DR boards - except ANI - there is some sort of structure, and the experiences have been positive in creating a more focused environment
3. The purpose of DR should be to seek resolution - not to exacerbate or increase issues, and experience shows reporting is often not the best step if other avenues are not explored.

So the proposed language and structure is to that end:

1. The first step in WP:DR is always to use article talk and user talk to try and resolve issues - WP:AGF, the primary source of Wikiquette, tells us to demonstrate good faith - any means we have to provide incentives for this is good
2. Reports done incorrectly usually show a lack of attention to the issue at hand, and generally mean that no time was given to think the issue through - regardless of the merits
3. Refusal to notify the other user is usually a signal that WQA is not the place to request assistance, if someone is so stressed or otherwise emotionally incapable of doing that simple step, they should go to another DR forum were admin attention is more prevalent - and were notification from an uninvolved party carries the weight of The Mop
4. The issue of pile-on, as my recent report shows, has do with the lack of an admin base here - and this will not change

Ultimately, I am not completely sold on any specific language, but I am indeed concerned with finding constructive solutions to the above issues. Doing so is not bureaucratic, at least not more so than having a noticeboard is. The alternative would be to eliminate WQA altogether as useless, the issues of pile-ons is obvious.--Cerejota (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding the template adds sections to the page index which have no content. It's a waste of time of everybody's time. Additionally we should just be focusing on the content of the dispute in a natural conversation manner not which little section a reply is supposed to go in. Gerardw (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That was copied from the model at WP:DRN. The problem with a conversational style, it that it often confuses matters and promotes the pileon issue.--Cerejota (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The conversational style has worked here for many years. The template style makes it difficult to know who is replying to what. Gerardw (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Gerardw that the template does not help and an opportunity for more informal discussion is often required, particularly because the reasons for making reports at WQA differ so much. Mathsci (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above. WQA is supposed to be a very flexible, informal, entry-level method of dispute resolution, and the non-structured system has always worked; that's precisely why it wasn't absorbed by DRN as was proposed! Swarm ^{u / t} 19:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Notification: RfC: Structure WP:WQA conversations

An RFC related to this page has recently been started at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Structure_WP:WQA_conversations. Monty₈₄₅ 03:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Was waiting for bot to list in order to notify :)--Cerejota (talk) 03:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal posted.--Cerejota (talk) 04:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Failure to notify other editors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

{{rfc}} Should users who fail to notify other interested parties:

• Have their discussions closed? or
• Be asked to notify the other users? Gerardw (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Both as the situation indicates Sometimes, closure is an option, sometimes it isn't, asking before closure is a good idea, but if there is refusal that is an indication that the issues might be more complex than what this board can handle, and hence closure and referral can be an expected outcome. --Cerejota (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• Asked WP:AGF would indicate the most likely reason for failure to notify is the user didn't see the instructions or forgot. Gerardw (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• Asked It's hard to imagine a situation where one would choose to close the discussion over notifying the other user. I suppose if there was some sort of continued harassment or forum shopping going on, one might close the discussion, but in such a case taking the disruptive behavior to the appropriate noticeboard is probably the correct way to go. aprock (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly my point.--Cerejota (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That you should take it to the appropriate noticeboard instead of closing it? aprock (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

One closes with {{NWQA}} and indicates to where.--Cerejota (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no clue what NWQA is. aprock (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – <--it's a closing template that suggests other venues for the editor requesting assistance.

Gerardw (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue of NWQA looks orthogonal to me. That is, if an issue is NWQA, then it shouldn't matter if notifications were handled according to the letter of policy. Likewise, if an issue belongs here, then proper notification can be done after the issue has been opened. I don't think notification status should be something that sends the issue elsewhere. If anything, not notifying is a wikiquette issue, so would the NWQA template then refer the discussion to a separate section? That seems a little silly. aprock (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that Gerard opened an extremely premature RfC instead of discussing the point more thoroughly. Hence the silliness, because no one has argued against the question posed, not even me. --Cerejota (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Asked exactly as on other public noticeboards. WQA is the place for editors to lead by exemplary behaviour. There is no need for vigilante conduct. Mathsci (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• Asked, or per WP:SOFIXIT, optionally notify them oneself. This page is of the most use to users who aren't experts on how Wiki things work, so it doesn't accomplish anything to rub their faces in it. Try to lower the drama, not add to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• Asked unless it is the third or fourth time they brought someone here and not done it. Then close. CarolMooreDC 21:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• Asked Tryptofish causa sui (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
• Asked - Per Trypto and CarolMooreDC. Many WP users are new to the system, so help them out. Even veterans have brain farts occasionally. --Noleander (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Asked, politely --Nuujinn (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Asked, obviously closing discussions because of an easily-remedied procedural issue is counterproductive and bureaucratic. Users need to be notified strictly because input from both sides is needed for WQA to work. In fact, I've always viewed asking users to notify the other party to be unnecessary; I usually notify users myself to avoid making an issue out of a non-issue. Swarm ^{u / t} 19:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• Asked politely, per everyone. Please let's not ever be the kind of bureaucracy where discussions are closed for purely procedural reasons. Christ, what are we here for: to write an encyclopedia or to implement increasingly complicated bureaucratic runarounds? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• Change the instructions from "Please notify" to simply "Notify". No sanctions for those that don't notify, but no "obligation" to notify either, really. Just no "please". Simply saying "Notify" (without the "you must" of other boards) instead of begging them to "Please" notify takes nothing away from any policy whatsoever. Think about it. Doc talk 06:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the please. Gerardw (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done[2]. Note the edit summary: it just mildly strengthens the plea to notify (which should be at least common courtesy anyway). Doc talk 04:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Updated header for discussion

From recent activity, it still doesn't appear editors coming to WQA understand the idealistic way we would like it to function. I've always understand it to be a lets talk this out and come to an understanding place, not an ANI-lite. To that end I'm proposing an updated header

• with a little more initial explanation as to the purpose/goal.
• with a more mellow tone in the instructions to model the informal, low key approach that the relatively few successful postings have. (I'm defining "success" as all involved parties walking away happy, or at least less unhappy.

I've posted it here for review & comment: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/HeaderSandbox Wikipedia talk:Wikiquette_assistance/HeaderSandbox. Gerardw (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you meant Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/HeaderSandbox. Mathsci (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Gerardw (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Updated the header as proposed. Gerardw (talk) 02:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

What if someone wants blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures?

The instructions say: Avoid initiating a request if: You want blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures.

Maybe I'm just not looking in the right place, but I'm not really sure where I would go if I wanted to request a block for uncivility. WP:ANI points here for civility problems and none of the other pages seem to fit. Perhaps some information on the right page for that kind of request could be added to the instructions?Sjö (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI for single incidents of incivility that rise to personal attacks, perhaps WP:RFC/U for long term patterns. Gerardw (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to this noticeboard, DRV discussion

As the redirect is related to this noticeboard - a note to inform users here that a redirect to this noticeboard was created Wikipedia:Run to Mommy - the redirect was nominated for deletion and the discussion is at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 November 13 - this ended in deletion and there is now a deletion review discussion at - Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 14 - Off2riorob (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

closing of discussions

A brief note -- the current volunteer instructions make no mention of putting archive tags on discussions -- in general I think it's a bad idea because it implies a "shut up" gestalt. When a discussion has run it's course, volunteers and parties can simply stop responding. Gerardw (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. At least we are all being more polite so things can at least clunk along.--Rskp (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

My post was first marked as closed[3], and then manually archived[4] by an involved editor, a tactic he borrowed from the editor he is supporting[5][6]. Clearly, the intended message was "shut up." Am I alone in considering this bad wikiquette? BitterGrey (talk) 06:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Do not make bad faith assumptions about me. I am not a supporter of any of you. Grind your axe elsewhere. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

A neutral editor wouldn't be so determined to make me "shut up" and/or "go away," but would be content to ignore me. A neutral editor also wouldn't be so quick to dismiss slurs about one's sexuality being used as ad hominem attacks. Now if we can get back to the topic of this original thread - how discussion closure here might itself be an act of bad wikiquette. BitterGrey (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Header format

1. Current format
2. Proposed new format - streamlined with other noticeboards and dispute resolution pages
3. Alternate proposal - distinguished slightly from other noticeboards etc.

I'd like to reformat the header of this page to be a little more user-friendly, and streamline with other noticeboard headers. I tried making a change twice but was reverted, with summaries that weren't all that descriptive of the opposing rationale. I feel the current header is a rather intimidating wall of text, whereas one of the new formats is more likely to actually be used. Which does everyone like best? Equazcion ^(talk) 19:49, 9 Jun 2012 (UTC)

• I'd support trimming.
• Historically, the primary issue we've had with WQA is users thinking it's ANI and starting threads demanding punishment for other editors. In fact the board used to be named Wikiquette Alerts; a consensus was achieved rename it the less aggressive Assistance. As indicated above, it has been repeatedly nominated for deletion. It is intentionally visually different from AN and ANI and the like, and operates differently. (e.g. the instructions do not endorse the use of archivetop/collapsetop tags; rather resolved/nwqa/stale/wqa in progress).
• Accordingly I'm opposed to any change to make it look more like ANI.
• Personally the Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance from other editors in resolving a situation. The goal is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable resolution. It is designed to function by persuasion, reason, and community support, not threats and blocks. is the part I feel most strongly about (I wrote it) as it emphasizes the difference between WQA and AN/ANI. (Naturally it goes without saying I'd accept any community agreed upon rewording as long as the message is essentially the same.)
• I could easily persuaded to lose most of the rest of the header except the {{subst:WQA-notice}} and some indication archives exist.Nobody Ent 20:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the problems you're describing have been true for nearly any dispute resolution page. I'm pretty open to any wording changes you have in mind, but the current format is also rather unsightly. I disagree that this is necessary but if I changed the colors of my proposal a bit to make this look more unique (ie. not like a noticeboard), would that help? Equazcion ^(talk) 20:11, 9 Jun 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/Header/sandbox for an alternative format, incorporating some of your wording (most of it, just copyedited). Personally I feel the statement is still a bit too long and is likely to be skimmed rather than read. Header text should be short and to-the-point. I'm willing to compromise to get the header replaced though, as I think the current one is in desperate need of an update. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:36, 9 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Archive link on both proposals is incorrect.

I'd remove "To mark a situation as resolved, place {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section."

Otherwise, alternative looks good to me. Nobody Ent 10:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on what's wrong with the archive link? You mean the button or the link above it? I'm not seeing the problem. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:14, 10 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Click on it. Current link goes here: Template:Wikiquette_assistance/Archive_navbox. Link in your sandbox goes here: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/index (last archive 2007?) Nobody Ent 01:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah gotcha. I'll fix it. Since there appears to be no objection to the sandbox version I'm going to implement that for now. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:36, 11 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Closing

Please close alerts per Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/Volunteer_instructions#Closing_entries. Note that there's no rule alerts have to be closed, sometimes they'll just get archived by the bot. Nobody Ent 02:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This section should be clarified, such as generally limiting closure to the original poster. Otherwise there is a risk of involved editors closing discussions in hopes of discouraging uninvolved editors from commenting. New editors in particular will assume those marks have some meaning, other than just being a way for an involved editor to prematurely end a discussion that isn't going his way. More seasoned editors might be bold enough to remove an abusive closure tag.BitterGrey (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

These closure tags are for the volunteers to use, not for the involved participants. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie, you ARE an involved participant - parroting WLU's position on the boards since 2011[7]. Additionally, we should all be volunteers - those who are not, who are getting paid for their work here - have a conflict of interest. Now please stop trying to hijack this discussion too. The original poster should be the one who decides whether he is content with the help he has received. Others should have the option of offering help or ignoring the post. Others should not have the option of deleting posts, marking active discussions closed, or archiving active discussions to try to prevent uninvolved editors from having the choice of helping or ignoring. You could have ignored me, or you could have answered those two simple questions. You didn't. Instead, you both closed[8] and manually archived[9] that discussion, showing that it was important to you that others would not have that option.

Now if you wouldn't mind leaving us to discuss how to frame the closure policy so that it won't be abused in this fashion again...BitterGrey (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have taken this incident to ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editor_consistently_making_bad_faith_assumptions. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)