Wikipedia talk:Resolving disputes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOTE: This is not the place to post notices of disputes, questions about particular articles, or requests for assistance. Please follow Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Archived

I manually ran the EssjayBot II code to archive off the discussions on this page that were more than 14 days old; just wanted to clarify that in case anyone was wondering if the bot had been set to archive the page automatically. (Using the bot code was quicker, since it automatically checks dates and archives.) Essjay (Talk) 03:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Go to talk?

Sure :) I think the present wording is fine. (Radiant) 16:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree.  ;-) Anyone else? TheronJ 16:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It's very ironic that our dispute over the "resolving disputes" page was so easy to resolve :) (Radiant) 17:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
That's because we're so good at dispute resolution.  ;-) (If anyone wants to check out or comment on our changes, Radiant! and I ended up making the following change[1] to WP:DR - largely to clarify the use of surveys when some editors believe that others are "ignoring consensus.") TheronJ 17:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking a user

A user User:Dangerous-Boy has been following my edits for last two days and has been tagging every Pakistan related article that I edit with a template with Republic of India which is extremely provacative territorial claim; as present day India is different from pre-1947 India which was called Subcontinent. After a lengthy discussion at User_talk:Dbachmann#Szhaider, where I and others gave him a solid reason to stop adding Indian tags to Pakistan related and Afghanistan related articles. User:Dbachmann gave a suggestion about creating a neutral tag without Indian flag refering to entire subcontinent. I created such a tag (Template:WP SouthAsia) and replaced indian tags with this new tag. But User:Dangerous-Boy removed this too and doesn't seem to convinced by any rational explanation. He is clearly following his own political agendas comparing India related articles with Pakistan related articles and he insists adding Indian scripts to Pakistan related articles (see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Use of vernacular scripts in India bio articles - 1). He has violated 3RR rule many times and I suggest he should be blocked to stop this meaningless edit war. It is wasting a lot of my time but I cannot stand such political aggression on Wikipedia. I suggest all Subcontinent history related articles should be tagged with Template:WP SouthAsia. Szhaider 05:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You have been doing the same thing. Removing Indian history tags from articles of the same relevance such ancient indic civilizations. You have already been told not to do this by other users yet you contine. You have reverted countless times and do not cease. The pak tag that u put on the articles is respected and stays there. Yet, you remove the indian history tag there assessments that have long been there. At the time of this writng there is no Wikipedia:WikiProject History of South Asia only Wikipedia:WikiProject South Asia.--D-Boy 05:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This one is not really for the help desk. Ideally it should be taken to WP:DR. However there are several ongoing discussions about it including one at WT:INB. Please participate and try to resolve along with others there — Lost(talk) 05:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I created Wikipedia:WikiProject South Asia to stop you (User:Dangerous-Boy) from tagging Pakistan related articles with Republic of India flags. I created a neutral Template:WP SouthAsia to replace your politiclly provacative and offensive tag. This new template covers the whole region, good for both Pakistan and Republic of India. Yet you are still imposing your nationalist approach towards the countries which are not part of and never were part of Republic of India; which was created, as we know it today, on August 15, 1947. Szhaider 05:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • As stated at the top of the page, "This is not the place to post notices of disputes, questions about particular articles, or requests for assistance. Please follow Wikipedia:Resolving disputes." (Radiant) 09:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Resolving Disputes

The amount of reading through the jungle here makes it close to impossible to find how to request a mediator. In my opinion one needs a lifetime study almost. If I take distance from it all I have hope, but once I see the pages and start reading I realize I need to go to bed in time as well because I need to go to work next morning. It feels like everything has done to make it (justice and dispute resolution) as least accessible as possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

[edit] Wikipedia:Resolving disputes amicably

I'd like to propose to rename the current name to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes amicably. Apparently Wikipedia:Resolving disputes amicably sounds good. Anybody else opposing to this nice name? --Sushisushi 11:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I believe the name is fine enough at the moment. Adding amicably may confuse things, its better to keep it generalized and to the point. If people reference to this page it usually should be to gather information about how to solve disputes amicably.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 05:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Dispute resolution is most needed when the parties are not amicable. Arbitration is part of the dispute resolution process and can be anything but amicable. —Centrx→talk • 05:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • True, true Centrx but do you believe that the policy requires such a rename?¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 05:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
No, that would not be an accurate name. —Centrx→talk • 06:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Just wanted to clarify it, as harsh as the process may become the question was whether the policy needed a rename. Pretty much keeping to "Dispute resolution" leaves it to enough interpretation.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Although if you think it'll help, you could add a sentence to this page stating it's preferable for disputes to be resolved amicably. (Radiant) 09:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How do you resolve a huge dispute between hundreds of editors over naming vs commonality?

That is my question. Simply south 17:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It might help if you gave a link to what you're talking about. In general, the answer is to request comments and make a compromise. >Radiant< 09:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving of Bath - see the talk page. Simply south 19:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't see hundreds of editors there. I see a valid Move Request that failed to reach consensus. >Radiant< 10:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok maybe that was a bit exaggerated but there are tens of editors here disputing the location. I'm not sure which would be the best use for bath\Bath. Basically, the Qs are (look at both RMs and surrounding deiscussions):
    • Is Bath classed as in Somerset?
    • Should the Bath article be changed into a disambiguation page?
    • Should the article about the city be reverted back to Bath?
    • Other locations
I'm sorry, i dd think it was hundreds and miscounted slightly but there are a lot of editors here involved (including me).
Simply south 11:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom and content

Just changing the section on involving ArbCom, who will not rule on content disputes - see official policy here:Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Past_decisions#Content_of_articles, and the many declarations from ArbCom that they do not consider content disputes. Mostlyharmless 03:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the addition, though some further clarification between the definitions of "content" v. "user conduct" issues might be helpful. For example, in scanning the results of recent ArbCom cases, a frequent result is, "User XXX is banned from editing the following articles." Though technically that's a "user conduct" issue, many laypeople will probably still regard that as a "content" issue, since the core of the dispute is usually, "User XXX and YYY disagreed about an article's content." --Elonka 05:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal blocking suggestion

When myself and others work on editing Wikipedia articles, our work is thwarted by individuals who come in and add lewd comments and other nonsense. Sometimes they blank the page. According to Wikipedia rules, we are supposed to give them fair warning, and by that it is mean't that we inform them first that such behavior is not allowed and invite them to edit in a responsible way. I have no problem with that at all.

The problem I do have is on some of their user pages I have seen last-warning tags all over the place. These people come into Wikipedia, vandalize, are warned about it, blocked, and then as soon as the block is removed they are back at it again. I am thinking seriously that these people regard Wikipedia as a joke and treat it accordingly; they know they won't be blocked from doing so, and I think it's a lack of a clear policy on blocking that is allowing them to get away with it. Try not to get me wrong; I will not ever blame Wikipedia staff for allowing it to happen. Responsibility rests solely with the vandalizers.

My proposal is simple. When a last warning tag is placed in a user file, Wikipedia follows it up by a day-block upon the next bit of vandalism. The following incident upon a removal of the block will cost the offender a week. Then a month. Then six months. Then a year. Editors who catch it should notify an adminstrator immediately.

In all honesty Wikipedia has too many people who work long hours just to make each article the best they can be, and we all cannot afford to have someone else come in and ruin it repeatedly just because he thinks it's funny. Carajou 15:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely, except for one thing. The proposal's too lenient. Day, week, indef. Three strikes and you're off to find another username. Mostlyharmless 20:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
This is not the right talk page for this, Wikipedia:Vandalism would be more appropriate, but if there are "last-warning tags all over the place" it is probably an IP. There is nothing permanent that can be done about an IP because they are re-assigned, usually rather frequently. If an IP is a recurrent problem, it usually means it is an open proxy or it belongs to a school or other such organization, in which case it is usually blocked for 6 months (and then longer if it continues). —Centrx→talk • 21:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please Do not Delete Minda's Inky World

I am the owner of Minda's Inky World, both the blog and the article. I would like for you to not delete my article because the purpose of the article is to spread word to other College students who use Tablet PC's to increase their success in College. I would like to also use the article to spread the word about Ink Blogs. Ink Blogs are personal blogs written using Digital Ink. If more users know about writing blogs in Digital Ink they can understand how to increase their creativity. If you feel this article is not important to the Tablet PC community then I am sorry but I personally feel it is important and would like other's to at least have to ability to increase their knowledge about the full capabilities of their Tablets. Minday 04:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Minday

That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising service. —Centrx→talk • 04:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reporting Admin Abuse

Hello, where do I report an Admin that is abusing their abilities? A page was vandalized, someone removed content that had appeared on it for at least a year, and had also deleted cited info without any explanations. I restored the content, but because my IP is similar to that of a blocked user, an overzealous admin actually restored the unexplained deletion and blocked my account. I have made several attempts to communicate with the admin without making a single personal attack, his response is to delete my comments on his talk page. How can I report admin abuse? I can't seem to find the correct forum to do so. 74.230.195.63 09:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard it says "Report all other types of incidents (e.g. blocked users evading blocks) on the subpage Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:AN/I). If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so there." So Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents sounds like the right place.
I'm sorry you're having these problems. You may want to consider logging in with a username: see Wikipedia:Why create an account?. Getting a username on Wikipedia is very fast and easy compared with registering at many other websites. My understanding is that users have a right to delete messages from their talk pages; however, in this case probably they should also reply meaningfully to you.
Are you sure you're using the same IP address every time? Some ISP's keep switching IP addresses, even during the same session, I think. Logging in with a username would solve that. When I look at your User Contributions, I don't see all the events you mention. Maybe the admin did reply to you, but put the reply on the talk page of the IP address you were using at the time. It may have been deleted from there since then. You can go to the admin's talk page and look at the page history to see the entry where you added a comment, and see what IP address you were using at that time. Then go to the talk page of that IP address, and check the page history of that talk page to see whether the admin replied, and read the reply if there is one.
By the way, this page isn't really the right place to ask this sort of question. In general, if you search around and can't find where to ask a certain type of question about how to use Wikipedia you can try the Wikipedia:Help desk -- I figure someone there should at least be able to tell you where the right page is for your type of question. --Coppertwig 09:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes

I reordered the sections based on the idea of internal solutions first, outside opinions second, mediation solutions third. I made truce/protection its own section, as a transition between inside/outside solutions and because holds on editing for cool off is its step in resolving disputes. In this discuss with third parties section, I put RFC last and changed the wording because it is not the primary avenue for disputes, but rather where to go when discussion and outside opinions fail to resolve the dispute. I added a mention that those providing third opinions and other outside advice may be willing to assist in informal meditation, because usually those participants are experienced editors and are willing to assist in resolving conflicts. If anyone has any further questions about the changes I made, please do not hesitate to ask. Also, if someone objects to the changes, I'm quite open to hearing that as well. Vassyana 13:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Conduct a survey should be placed at the end, or at least not at the front, because it is a discouraged misleading method and furthermore any survey must come after discussion and summoning opinions from everywhere in order to be at all effective.
  • Article RfCs are the main avenue for resolving disputes and are "outside opinions". Only user RfCs could be considered a last resort. For policies, an RfC is the first resort.
  • A freeze in the third section must always accompany discussion, otherwise it is the same as the "disengage for a while". The freeze is to facilitate discussion, especially with outside opinions. —Centrx→talk • 16:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest clarification regarding use of discussion pages and "edit warring"

Hello folks, recently I was warned not to run afoul of 3RR. This was a tad surprising (to me anyway) because I had made fairly meticulous efforts at both discussion and consensus, and had never recieved a warning of any sort on Wikipedia before (if you want more background see here).

Anyway, the part that is relevant to this forum: it seems there should be some clarification about the relationship between "edit warring" and article discussion pages. Apparently, a Wikipedia contributor can be successfully accused of "edit warring" (and run afoul of 3RR) even if she has made a significant good-faith attempt to discuss an issue, and the party bringing the accusation has made no attempt to respond.

This seems especially strange, since this policy page states in relevant part:

  Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the 
  dispute instead of resolving it. This will make people less sympathetic to your 
  position and may prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution.

So it appears one party can comply with Wp:dr#First_step:_Talk_to_the_other_parties_involved, another party can be in non-compliance, and yet the non-complying party can bring an accusation of "edit warring" and even request a block against someone who has repeatedly requested discussion. All without taking a single step to discuss the underlying issue, or explain why discussion is not necessary.

This seems a tad unbalanced, but if that is in fact consistent with WP policy, then it suggests a substsantial revision or clarification is in order. Just some thoughts. dr.ef.tymac 17:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're been trying to engage in discussion and working in good faith, that will be obvious to outside parties in the various dispute resolution steps. Running afoul of WP:3RR is often considered to be edit-warring, except for reverting vandals. Even if you feel it's necessary to revert that many times, please avoid doing so. If the other edits are that problematic, invite some outside eyes with a third opinion request or a request for comments. Vassyana 23:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I think everything you said is rational, my only concern is that it is not always obvious what constitutes a "revert" (e.g., you try to address a deficiency claimed by an editor in an edit summary, then get told that constituted 1 'revert' because it re-introduced wording that was in the article sometime in the past).
For example, someone undoes an edit with an edit summary "uncited WP:ATT" and then you post in the discussion page "here's the cite to the NYT article, here's the exact wording" and you re-add the content, along with the link to the cite in your edit summary (which is already a footnote in the article itself). It seems a lot of times people don't even read the citations closely, so its understandable it could be missed, and undone yet again. What's a little odd is how readding and showing it was not uncited equals a "revert" or "edit warring," especially when the person may not have even read the discussion page? I guess I am not as confident in the "universal obviousness" as others may be.
Nevertheless, your point is duly noted. Perhaps your point about "outside eyes" should be somewhere in the paragraph about discussion pages. Thanks for your response. dr.ef.tymac 03:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This would be more relevant to make a change at WP:3RR. —Centrx→talk • 18:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/s/Wikipedia_talk%7EResolving_disputes_2613.html"