Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Conflict resolution flow chart

Hopefully everyone does this.

Hello, I created this flow chart for flow chart and thought it might also come in useful here. Since this is an official policy page I am putting it here for incorporation by the larger community if they feel it is justified. Triddle 08:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this! I just came here to write that I find the sequence provided has some major flaws, and your chart offers a refreshing alternative. It's a pity no one has started discussing it yet. Well, let's begin, then. (Disclaimer: My comments are mostly based on mediating in ethnic conflicts, so they may not apply to all conflicts.)

1. Design: I would prefer if you did not break up the arrows with "yes" and "no". This makes the chart appear more complicated than it is.
2. I love the first question "can you stay cool?" - it really gives people a choice and takes them by their pride. When you just tell people, as this page currently does, you have to take a break first, they feel only pressured. Most people who go to mediation do not have the mindset for a break at all.
3. "Shower them with Wikilove": I think this is way over the top. I would be so happy if everybody who reaches mediation were just willing to cooperate. I think this is the right moment for the box "Try to form a consensus on the talk page".
4. sock puppets: Cut this decision. People who are familiar with Wikipedia will know it already, and newbies don't need to worry about this. — Sebastian 05:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) It's a pity there seems to be nobody who wants to talk about what sequence we should recommend. I thought a bit more about it. Here's a table of the sequence I would prefer. Final stages have a yellow background, as in the flow chart above:

#	Question	If Yes ...	If No ...
1	Can you stay cool?	Try to form a consensus on the talk page	Disengage for a while
2	Has a consensus been formed?	Success!	-> line 3
3	Are they being disruptive?	hand over to WP:AN	Choose between one of the options of step 3 or "further steps"

Merge Step 3 and Further dispute resolution

In this edit, the "Editor assistance" section was moved up because the editor felt that "this is something to consider before further dispute resolution ..." I subsequently renamed that step to "Third step: Bring in an outside editor".

However, I now realize that these two changes don't make sense. Section "Further dispute resolution" contains a subsection "Discuss with third parties". There is no real difference between bringing in an outside editor and discussing with third parties, in particular, as the latter contains such processes as Request for Comment. Is there any consensus for telling people they need to ask for Editor assistance before they can consider options like Requests for comment or MedCab? — Sebastian 09:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge part of Avoidance section into Step 1

Not only does Avoidance include "discuss it on the talk page", it even contains several instructions for how to talk. Is there any reason to keeping this in a separate section? — Sebastian 19:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I also propose to delete the advice "Be respectful to others and their points of view". I can't imagine anyone coming to this page to decide if they should or should not be respectful to the other party. More likely, this well-intended finger-wagging will backfire: From the reader's perspective, it naturally will point right at the other party as per Matthew 7:3. — Sebastian 20:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Carrying out proposed changes and more

I now carried out the changes as proposed above. While I was doing so, it became a bigger endeavour than I had anticipated. There was some redundancy in the existing text; and some topics were scattered haphazardly over several sections.

Above all, I rearranged the first few steps and numbered all but the last from 1 through 6. Maybe step 1 and 2 should be swapped, but I didn't dare to go so far without a discussion, and I can think of some good reasons not to do that. I did, however, put the truce in a step of its own because the current text clearly specified that it needs to come before asking others. Maybe we could include that in step 4.

Most of my wording changes were in the first 2 steps and the first paragraph of step 3. The only changes in the other steps that might affect the policy are:

• split up Ask ... into "Ask about the subject" and "Ask about a policy" because they have little more to do with each other than with the other options.
• Regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject, I added "Usually, such projects are listed on top of the article talk page."
• Moved formal mediation up so it's now next to informal med.

I deleted the following non-trivial or not obviously redundant texts:

• "Avoid going back to the page of dispute. Respond to questions about it on your user talk page and direct the questioner to take their issues to the article talk page to keep all relevant discussion in one place." This conflicted with the text "The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page, you may even post the proposed content on the talk page. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question. Never carry on a dispute on the article page itself.", and in my experience, it doesn't make a significant difference on which talk page the discussion takes place. (Except, of course, if the page is mediated.)
• "Wikipedia works by building consensus. To develop a consensus on a disputed topic, you may need to expose the issue to a larger audience." This is mostly redundant with the text "If talking to the other parties involved and taking a break fails, you should try one of the following methods to resolve the dispute. Which ones you choose and in what order will depend on the nature of the dispute, and the preferences of people involved.". The link to consensus is nice, but not as important as the link to WP:NPOV, which is already in the intro.
• Deleted link to Wikipedia:Protection policy from "see also". We already have a link to WP:RFPP, which I think is more helpful to someone who is in a panic. That page of course links to Wikipedia:Protection policy in its intro.

I hope that I was able to make this page clearer and that it now more straightforwardly addresses editors who are often under particularly heavy stress and may not have the patience to read the whole policy. Overall, I took care not to delete anything that is a policy; other than the link to WP:PROT I did not delete any links to policies or guidelines but rather inserted new ones where appropriate. — Sebastian 00:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Truce

The wording was "If you have not agreed to a truce before this point, you should do so now." I had shortened this to "Negotiate a truce - see Wikipedia:Truce", but I now realize that it now clearly states that it's part of the policy, where before, it was fuzzy. (I find the word "should" should not be used in a policy. It doesn't clearly say if it is necessary or not and doesn't offer any criteria. Hence, it leaves this decision entirely up to how much an editor responds to a guilt trip.) Because Wikipedia:Truce is not a policy, I assume it was meant as a recommendation and tone it down to "Consider negotiating a truce". — Sebastian 01:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Community enforced mediation

Can we add WP:CEM? We could just use their first paragraph, or does someone have a better idea? — Sebastian 05:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think WP:CEM should be added, but perhaps with a succinct and clearer description of what it is and how it differs from other available means for mediation. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

How is this for a possible draft?

"Where content disputes arise between experienced editors with opposing and strongly held viewpoints, it can become very difficult to keep a balanced perspective and hold on to an assumption of good faith. The quality of the debate can quickly descend into personal attacks. If a pair of editors tend to find themselves treading down that path and want outside help to do so, they can pursue an “enforced truce” by means of Community enforceable mediation. In the WP:CEM process, the editors themselves, with the assistance of a mediator, formulate an agreement regarding the norms to which they wish themselves to adhere with community help. It can cover editing behaviors or how they will agree to treat controversial material. The benefit is that the editors themselves work out how they want to deal with their issues, rather than having “time-outs” or other penalties imposed upon them."

I'm thinking it might best be added to the end of the Discussion (Step 4) section since it's more focused on working things out between editors than with outside help (just outside enforcement). Askari Mark (Talk) 23:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Mediation or Arbitration

There needs to be a clear distinction made between Mediation and Arbitration. At one stage, I was advised to go to Mediation for problems with an editor. I did so but after a while I was finally informed that Mediation doesn't cover disputes on user conduct. It covers disputes about article content.

The dispute resolution page gives a clear impression that the process goes through Mediation and then up to Arbitration, but this is wrong. The text should state clearly that:

1. disputes about article content go to Mediation

2. disputes about user conduct go to Arbitration.

Sardaka (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're quite right. Something's been bothering me about this at the back of my head, and you've put your finger on it. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not it. We would prefer people using other methods from this page before requesting arbitration. Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Scope says:

Where a dispute has not gone through mediation, or the earlier steps in the dispute resolution process, the Arbitrators may refer the dispute to the Mediation Committee if it believes mediation is likely to help.

Step 6 lists several methods to apply when you have problems with other editors:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on users
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts
• Asking about a policy
• Community enforced mediation also allows user issues, although this isn't included in the list yet.

What's bothering me - and this may be the same that's bothering you - is that the user has to make a complicated choice with little information. If even we don't readily see such an important criterium as where to go to complain about what then it's certainly too complicated. BTW, that's why I proposed creating a generalized emergency page WP:911 this morning here. — Sebastian 06:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If "community enforced mediation also allows user issues", what is the procedure for this?

The above statement "Where a dispute has not gone through mediation etc etc," doesn't seem to help much, since other statements make it clear that requests have to go through the normal channels, RfC etc. Scope makes it clear that Arbitration covers disputes between editors, not article content issues.

In any case, the Dis. Res. page does nothing to make this clear. "If Arbitrators may refer a dispute to the Mediation Committee" -- if this is the case, it isn't spelled out on the Dis.Res. page. Regardless of what the Arbitrators may do, the fact is that we are expected to go through normal channels first, but they don't make it clear that mediation is normally for content and Arbitration is for conduct. These things should be spelled out clearly on the page. I was told to go to MedCab and then waited ten weeks for a verdict before someone finally told me that MedCab isn't for disputes like that, so I just wasted ten weeks.

Sardaka (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm very sorry that you had this disappoinment with MedCab. I would like to talk more about this with you. Would you like to bring it up on Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal or would you rather send me e-mail?

Re content vs conduct: This was never explicitly decided. It's just that some mediators feel that way, but we don't have a fix rule, and I don't think we should. I could bring it up on our talk page. If some mediators feel that way, they just don't have to accept such cases. I personally don't have any problems taking a personal case. My guess is that people may feel that other methods, such as the ones I listed above, are more effective. But if that's the case then we should make this clear on this page, WP:DR, and not come up with a halfhearted rule on MedCab.

With regard to "If Arbitrators may refer a dispute to the Mediation Committee": Do I understand you correctly that you feel it should be spelled out? Why? — Sebastian 11:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

For the procedures of community enforced mediation, please see WP:CEM or ask people there. — Sebastian 11:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I would think it's obvious that these things should be spelled out clearly on DR, to stop people wasting their time, like I wasted my time, and not go round in circles etc. Your above comments may all be accurate, but they don't help people if they are not spelled out clearly on the page.

The statement about arbitrators referring a case to mediation if it hasn't gone through the early stages seems to be circular, ie how do you get to the arbitrators in the first place if you haven't gone through the early stages?

I agree that the way it is at the moment is too complicated, and things need to be spelled out better. As it is at the moment, there's nothing to stop people from having my experience, because nothing is explained clearly.

DR at the moment says that Rfc is the normal way to go, and Wikiquette Alerts are only for uncivil editors.

(I will talk to you directly about my experience.)

Sardaka (talk) 12:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that what is needed is explanation in a few stages, eg:

A. an outline of the informal options like, Wikiquette, AN/I, Village pump etc.

If this is not enough, go to:

B. Mediation if the dispute is about article content,

OR

C. Arbitration (preceded by RfC) if the dispute is about user conduct.

Then maybe people won't go up the garden path like I did.

Sardaka (talk) 10:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

RFC/U is disputed.

Please see WP:VPP#WP:RFC/U - time to get rid of it?. Will ^(talk) 18:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

General conflict resolution question

I have a general question regarding the conflict resolution steps. I'll phrase this question as a hypothetical even though it is based on an actual case. Suppose a dispute involves applicability to a particular case of some basic WP policies, such as WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Suppose that, in the view of one of the parties, the other party's edit represent a very clear violation of these policies, but that neither party is willing to yield or change their mind.

Does it make sense to request mediation (formal or informal) in this case? Or should one try to proceed to arbitration right away? Or is there some other quick way to deal with a particularly clear case of a WP policy violation? I'd appreciate any advice from experienced editors. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Step 6: Turn to others for help

Step 6 seems to disagree with this other article: Wikipedia:Canvassing#Forum shopping. Which is true? --Chuck Marean 11:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:MEDCAB & WP:3O streamlining

After discussion with many people off wiki about this subject i felt it would be a good idea to see if there is widespread consensus for this to happen. These two methods of dispute resolution are similar but differ mainly in that 3O deals with disputes between two editors and MEBCAB deals with multiple editors. I felt that the referral between these two groups should be streamlined to allow quicker referral from one to the other. Although this does exist in the form or a suggestion on the WP:3O page and there is no such suggestion on the MEDCAB page. What i am proposing is a direct referral process, so that what multi party disputes posted at WP:3O can be quickly and efficiently be passed on to WP:MEDCAB and vice versa with regards to 2 party disputes. Given that most content disputes 99.99% of the time have to go through MEDCAB before going on to MEDCOM it seems a sensible idea. This could happen by the referral by the cabalists and 3O contributers themselves with a message on the parties concerned informing them of the referral. Seddon69 (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC) _{message also posted at MEDCAB and 3O}

No Original Research / Noticeboard

I just added WP:NOR/N to the list of noticeboards; I hope no one objects. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What If None of the Steps of Dispute Resolution Work?

What happens when dispute resolution doesn't work? You try all the steps about content, and nothing is different at the end than at the beginning. Arbitration is only for conduct issues. Wikipedia seems to only enforce policies about conduct; policies about content are not enforced. Life.temp (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the cause of the content issue. If you believe that someone is adding information to Wikipedia that is factually incorrect, then that's a conduct issue, as an editor is violating WP:V. If they're adding information that gives undue weight to a particular viewpoint, such that the article violates Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, then again, that's a conduct issue (an editor is violating the neutrality policy). You're right though that it's usually easier to enforce policies about conduct (incivility, disruption), than neutrality. But ultimately, any content is added to Wikipedia by one or more editors, and if they are violating policies, then that's Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, which can be dealt with, either by blocking the editor that's doing it, or possibly requesting a community ban which prevents them from editing in certain topic areas. In order to really deal with an editor who is inserting bad content though, you need to have other editors who agree with you that the content is bad. If other editors look at the situation, and their opinion is, "Well, the editor is using reliable sources, they're interpreting them properly, they're not violating neutrality, they're explaining controversial edits, and they're participating in discussion with other editors in a civil and collegial way to ensure that the article properly reflects consensus", then there's probably not a conduct issue. In such a case, if you still disagree with content, your best option is to expand the article to include an alternate point of view, to ensure that you are basing your own information on reliable sources, and to articulate your concerns at the relevant talkpage. See also Dealing with disruptive editors.

Bottom line: It depends.  :) If you can provide more specific examples though, especially to articulate what the exact problem is, and which steps in Dispute Resolution that you tried, we can give more specific advice. --Elonka 15:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think violating neutrality or verifiability, etc. is a conduct issue. If you go to ANI with complaints about that, they will tell you admins don't resolve disputes about content. In practice, content issues are converted into conduct issues is through edit warring. At that point, "the authorities" get involved, but that's not really a resolution to a disgreement over content, per se. The specific example that has led me to this topic is my attempt at dispute resolution in the anti-Americanism article. It is about to be rejected for formal mediation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Anti-Americanism. In other words, the last step has been tried, and the article as it stand violates many policies about neutrality and original research. Life.temp (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on the basic point. Elonka says above you need other editors who agree with you, & my experience of both placing & responding to RfCs is that hardly anyone responds. See also Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard & Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Procedure for more discussion around this point. Peter jackson (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I have made a page that discusses further methods in case arbitration is not satisfactory. See Wikipedia:WikiWar. Jdrrmk (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The question is a good one. I have recently been involved in a long-running dispute over content that has reached a point now where, essentially, everyone has agreed to take a break. There is no resolution and the debate will flair up again all too soon. The dispute was taken to ArbCom, where one side was accused of gaming the system, but this is exceptionally hard to prove and the case was rejected as content dispute. This is not the place to rehash those arguments, but this has highlighted a "hole" (as an ArbCom member put it) in the dispute resolution process. In this instance, one side believes that there is an issue of neutrality; the other side believes that there was no such issue. As simple as that sounds, it was the core of the debate. In such a case, there will never be agreement unless it can be looked at by some non-partisan third party, and such a third party has some power to impose a solution in a similar way to ArbCom. Informal mediation simply does not work, because there is no way to mediate between "there is a problem" and "there is no problem".--FimusTauri (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

So what do we do about it? Do we give ArbCom or some similar body the power to resolve content disputes? Do we introduce a system of automatically notifying all account holders of all RfCs & hope enough people turn up & they're mostly unbiased? Sheer numbers of members give Wikpedia enormous inertia. It would be difficult to get fundamental changes made. Perhaps we should just give up & let propagandists censor & falsify WP to their hearts' content. It would soon be totally discredited & we could start again. Peter jackson (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Something has to be done. In the light of that ArbCom decision I did have some thoughts about a possible alternative procedure. I have no idea if it would work, but I have put a rough draft here for consideration.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution viewed as 'optional'

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:AN_is_not_a_step_in_dispute_resolution seems to indicate that some administrators view Dispute Resolution as "optional" and that they can take "alternative" steps if they want to.

Perhaps some more explicit language needs to be added stating that all editors and administrators are expected to follow Dispute Resolution? --Barberio (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Mechanism for getting help with complex disputes?

It seems to me that none of the current options really offer a good way to resolve a complex dispute regarding article content. At the Village Pump, I have suggested an option for doing so. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have begun a draft of a page which could host such a process. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Steal your shortcut?

Resolved

wp:avoid currently redirects to a section of this page, but it has rarely been used for this purpose; I see 6 links at the "whatlinkshere" page, almost all of them to archives. Someone took WP:AVOID for WP:Words to avoid; my guess is that's the page that would leap to mind when people see WP:AVOID, but I don't have any strong feelings about it, if someone here wants to keep the shortcut for this page. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

About changes

I've rewritten the first three sections - I do not believe I've changed their message; I am hoping I cleared up some of the clutter to let the spirit of DR through. Brevity is clarity, imo :-)

I'll continue later, but I'm taking a break since some folks might disagree and I'd rather not have everything rolled back ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, you did indeed not change the message, and introduced many good improvements of brevity. I have two questions:

• You removed a number of links to policies, such as to WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. I can imagine that you did that to remove clutter, but I feel these links empower readers to read more about a topic that may be pertinent to their problem.
• You removed the sentence "Always explain your changes, especially when you want other people to agree with you." I assume you felt it was already expressed by "it's good style to explain why you made your changes". But I feel it's not the same: The latter is just the usual moral fingerpointing "Be nice and do as we tell you!". Who wants to read that?! By contrast, the former appeals to wiles: It gives the reader a tip that makes it worthwhile reading. Actually, I would like the whole policy be written with that in mind, but I'm not so good at it. — Sebastian 06:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at those policies, dude? ;-) They turned from a basic position in our encyclopedia to a massive beaning. The last thing I want is for people to start conflating common sense with undue officiousness. If someone is approaching DR, they probably know what NPOV is, and the part about RS is a bridge they can cross when they come to it (I'm a coordinator for medcab, btw; I don't mean to show off my creds, but please understand that I have a good idea now of what works and what is failing... I'm sure you did (and still do) when you were the coordinator)

As for the change in wording, I felt the former sentence didn't make much sense (you only explain your changes to get people to agree with you). You're probably right about the second sentence.

Help me out here :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 06:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

And for a quick elaboration on removing the policy links: it's almost universally better to have someone explain these things to you than read it from the policy page. I don't even pipe NPOV anymore. It's just not helpful anymore. Better they come to us (medcabalists, etc) and have it explained. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I haven't looked at most of these pages in over a year. I just took them for granted. Maybe they have changed; I've seen a lot of instruction creep here lately. Still, I would prefer if we kept our policies clean, instead of hiding them as if we were ashamed of them. I don't see how these core policies can be used for beaning; would you have an example for that? (I am aware that AGF is often used as a weapon, as when a POV pusher templated me with the AGF template just for asking politely them why they did a certain edit.)

About the especially: I guess there was a grain of irony in that. How about if we replace it with "because"? — Sebastian 07:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Still, I would prefer if we kept our policies clean," - precisely why I removed the links. They can go back in, but it just adds to the confusion. I'm really trying to dig DR out of a hole. As for the beaning aspects, it's more of a counter-beaning since they explicitly say you can't do this or that, despite cause (IAR, common sense, etc) to do so, which causes a boatload of problems (re: UNDUE esp.) In other words, I am ashamed of them; I'll get around to editing them (like pulling teeth), but for the moment I just want DR to be clean, heaven-forbid any policy page is :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC) I'll re-add the text :-D

On the pyramid,

can someone see the difference between the 1st 3 points? I don't see any (other than the 1st not describing the process of providing arguments). Scepegoet (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This pyramid is an illustration of http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are referring to the top three layers of the pyramid. If that's so, then they are explained in the sections DH4 through DH6 on that page. However, to be honest, that explanation has its problems, too. Some of the text of these sections only clouds the distinction. E.g. "correcting someone's grammar" is typical for level DH2. Using that in the description of DH6 makes it sound like DH6 is just a notch above DH2. — Sebastian 20:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:List_of_policies#Suggestions

I'm suggesting moving this page to the behavioral policy cat. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 05:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I as a human being cannot see how anyone who claims to care about the truth and humanity can be neutral about this article and Khodorkovsky.I suggest that there should be a soundoff section and worldwide rejection of Russian policy. [jchip1@live.com] February 14 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.252.92.159 (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

How to restore the article?

Please restore the article Our "Lady of Lourdes". This article is vandalised and made blank by the user "194.83.245.89". I tried to restore it but nothing can be done. Can some administrator provide some help in this issue?

Direct link to the page is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Lourdes --Narendran (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What template do I use?

I'd like to use a template to ask people to NOT remove relevant information from a certain article before discussing it. Specifically, people keep removing information from a certain politician's article simply because it could be interpreted as making said politician look bad (although the language is actually quite neutral, as it is the result of discussion between editors both for and against said politician). The most recent change was clearly due to an agenda, replacing the information with unbridled praise. I'm not looking for anyone to side with me on the dispute, but I would like people to discuss removal of information before just doing so out of political bias. Which brings me back to my question, how do I address this with a template? Minaker (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is there bias?

Please tell me why there is bias, and why those who are asked about it will raise false issues (straw man) - accusing the questioner of either questioning a particular entry or comment instead of the general policy, or of questioning a general area instead of one issue, in order to attack the questioner while avoiding the specific issue the questioner raised?

It has been pointed out that properly cited and referenced questions have been put on the Obama article, but removed even though they comply with the citation and reference requirements. This implies that the editors absolutely do not want any criticism of Obama as if he were their personal hero, rather than maintaining a dispassionate separation of partisan preference and objective information.

I asked why the bias. I was accused of trying to debate Obama. If you read the following, you will see that I was asking for an answer to an apparent lapse of adherence to policy. You will also see that I acknowledged a copyright violation - with an article that points out the bias.

I would appreciate you answering my question and not questioning my "lack of support" for Obama, and would appreciate it if you looked at it with enough clear-headedness to realize I am asking about Wikipedia applying its policies in a consistent manner to people, not in a consistent manner to a poltiical ideology or preference.

 -----

Don't you agree there is a legitimate reason to at least ASK Obama to prove he is eligible?

Why does Wikipedia refuse opposing points of view? Wouldn't it welcome opposing points of view if a conservative was president? Why the bias in favour of Obama? One day, this charlatan will be reviled for plunging the US into debt, if not more dangerous things. Explain why Wikipedia is afraid of a contrast in views, of pointing out the man's negative aspects! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.253.235 (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid I was too busy beating my wife to comprehend your question.

We are afraid of copyright infringement, and I reverted your edit because you copied and pasted an entire article from a copyright source. My edit, and the note on your talk page, had nothing whatsoever to do with Mr. Obama, politics, the U.S.A., conservatives, debt, or anything else. Pretend I'm a robot that enforces Wikipedia policies and leaves pertinent notes, and we'll get along just fine. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 04:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Why the bias" is not a complex question. Anti-George Bush and anti-Ronald Reagan is allowed. Why not anti-Obama? Why aren't legitimate mentions of associations with controversial figures allowed for Obama, but they are for Alan Keyes or Stephen Harper or other conservative figures. Why the bias? Simple.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.253.235 (talk • contribs)

I'm not interested in arguing politics with you, I want you to comprehend and comply with our copyright and talk page policies. You are presupposing that this has something to do with politics, and it does not. Do you acknowledge that you violated our copyright policy? Antandrus (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge the violation. Do YOU acknowledge that others did not violate because they put in references to support their own wording? Yet you (meaning Wikipedia admin) removed their references and their wording and banned them for three days? No, of course you won't acknowledge that others obeyed the rules, because it will mean admitting that you are biased. I don't care if you support Obama, that is your democratic right. You must acknowledge that there are millions of Americans who don't support him.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.253.235 (talk • contribs)

"Why the bias" doesn't sound like a political argument. It sounds like an editorial argument. You made a straw man - saying I was arguing politics where I was really pointing out an apparent Wikipedia editorial bias.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.253.235 (talk • contribs)

Repeat after me: this has nothing to do with Obama. You are trying to make it into something to do with Obama. It has to do with Wikipedia policy. I'm an administrator, and I caught you violating it, and left you a polite warning. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Repeat after me: this has nothing to do with Obama, but it does have to do with Wikipedia allowing opposing comments for some and not for others. You have therefore confirmed that you _will not_ answer a question as to whether you are allowing bias, instead, you will simply ignore that question and accuse your questioners of things that will allow you to accuse them. Therefore, I no longer expect you to answer the question. I will tell everyone I know and beyond that Wikipedia is to be taken with a grain of salt.

  ----------

end of transcript.

I agree entirely with the last sentence. Peter jackson (talk) 10:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy

I want to refer the article on Homeopathy to be considered here. Every statement is criticised and no defense is allowed. No POV tag is being allowed to be inserted on the article either.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 10:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the Dispute resolution page, not requesting DR (WP:TALK). The first stop would probably be to post a request at the appropriate noticeboard. The most relevant would be WP:FTN. I would advise you to be more specific, and not make clearly incorrect statements such as "every statement is criticised and no defense is allowed". Please post on the Homeopathy talk that you have started a thread at WP:FTN when you do. Yours, Verbal chat 10:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

When editors reject all forms of dispute resolution

what is the next step? I refer you to Talk:Enhanced interrogation techniques#The need for some form of dispute resolution is fairly clear. I would like some advice on how to move forward on this. Dlabtot (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Words of caution

This section doesn't really appear to be adding anything worthwhile. Plus, someone has already (correctly in my view) tagged the section as lacking clarity. I think the best thing would be to remove the section in its entirety. Thoughts? Hibbertson (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I junked what was there as it made no sense to me at all, and wrote something new, though perhaps not entirely unrelated. [1] Rd232 ^talk 18:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of dispute resolution procedures

What is an appropriate forum for a general discussion of dispute resolution? Fred Talk 11:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have some kind of an idea, I'd suggest Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) in the first instance, and use feedback there to formulate an WP:RFC. For entirely general discussion, the recently-established Wikipedia:Areas for Reform‎ may fit the bill. Rd232 ^talk 14:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The wiki is not the proper place. Or, maybe it is. Maybe propriety and appropriateness are not the issue, really, as much as are access, centralization, and integration. -Stevertigo 18:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

OTRS section

Editors watching this page should note that there is active discussion as to the legitimacy of OTRS as policy, most recently here.

I oppose the addition of this section to our dispute resolution procedures. OTRS is not policy, which is one thing, but the obscure and semi-redundant OTRS dispute resolution procedure is certainly not one of our DR procedures. It's just the procedure OTRS uses.    M   19:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Almost identical issues exist with dispute resolution over any privacy-related matter -- for example "checkuserblock" actions by a checkuser, or suppressions by an oversighter, as well as OTRS. The only difference really is where the dispute gets sent if it is in question -- OTRS dispute resolution, functionaries list, or Arbcom.

I've updated this section to cover all of them, which was an unaccountably missing area. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the new additions. Thanks for expanding what I added, FT2. It looks good. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I'm doing something different with the monthly WP:Update, I'm selecting a reasonable-looking version rather than automatically using the last version of the month, and this is a lot more work so I'm starting early. FYI, I changed {{main}} to {{see}} because "main" specifically mentions "articles" so it's not useful for policy pages. - Dank (push to talk) 19:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday, all the mentions of OTRS were removed from this page. The editor didn't say so, but I'm guessing the reason is that we have a whole policy page devoted to that topic ... WP:OTRS ... and there are a lot of edits to that page this month. I've added a sentence to the introduction pointing people to that page; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 14:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Controlling dispute

An essay has been drafted that concerns the treatment of a minority group proposing an addition to a Main page that is not favored by the majority of editors contributing to the article. Please comment. Brews ohare (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Also see the recent discussions at Wikipedia_talk:Civility/Archive_15. - Dank (push to talk) 17:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Article needs more info on informal mediation

I got involved in a formal mediation that had some problems. Reading about formal mediation I saw there were some rules, especially related to using an editor's bad behavior in mediation in ANI complaints, etc. Not to mention if people can "hold it against you" if you drop out of mediation in an informal situation where the mediator just can't seem to cut it. Policy information on that would be helpful here. I'll write some if no one has any ideas. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Cat?

The policies were recently moved around among the policy subcats (conduct, content, deletion, enforcement, legal, procedural, and uncategorized) ... see List of policies for the list. There hasn't been any discussion about this page yet ... I'm thinking it looks procedural, but uncategorized would be fine as well. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 05:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed the conduct cat; feel free to revert, or to add this to Category:Wikipedia procedural policies. - Dank (push to talk) 18:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

There was some support and no opposition over at WT:POLICY#Agreed to move this into the procedural policy subcat (I removed it from the conduct subcat a few days ago). I'll make it so if there's no opposition. - Dank (push to talk) 05:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

WQA urgent?

Including WP:WQA in the urgent situation section seems inappropriate -- the statement on top of WQA notes it is not a place where blocks are issued. I'm removing the incivility reference -- those pretty aren't urgent -- and suggesting AN/I instead. Gerardw (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Disputes between non-admins & admins?

Please help! Is there anything that, as a mere ordinary editor, one can do if one is in a dispute with an admin who is being uncivil as well as totally refusing to seriously engage with one's reasons for one's edits?
In the case to which I'm referring, an admin has reverted my edits - & subsequently blocked me - while completely failing to properly consider & reply to my arguments and questions, defending his (apparently knee-jerk, given his inability to engage in any real two-way discussion about it) reinstatement of the systemic bias I was attempting to correct on the (spurious) grounds of "standard practice", and accusing me of "political agenda pushing", while showing a complete inability or disinclination to recognize the political nature of the systemic bias I was attempting to correct (which, by the way, is a bias in which he appears to quite possibly have a personal stake).
--Tyranny Sue (talk) 05:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You should take this to WP:ANI. -- œ^™ 06:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Help request

I was blocked for 24 hours for violating an interaction ban I'm a party in. The issue is that I didn't violate it and I want to appeal for this blocked to be removed from my log of blocks. I don't exactly sure where and how I should do it. I have all diffs and etc ready-jusy need help in filling the request. Also, I understand the dispute resolution is usually needed-but my request is to remove my blocked (expired one) from my log (something the blocking admin can't do anyway I guess). However, posting on the blocking admin talk page and waiting for his reply seem to be superfluous in my specific case. Moreover, the blocked demonstarted to me continous wrong judgment of the blocking admin (maybe a worth reporting issue by itself). I'm willing to continue with the next step (request for comment)-but it seem I can't do it without posting on his TP first, so what should I do?--Gilisa (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no appeal process for removing a block from your log. Regardless, this isn't the place to discuss such things, this page is for discussing improvements to the Dispute resolution page itself. Try WP:EA or WP:ANI. -- œ^™ 15:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a big issue because im new and it happened to me already with Gogo Dodo. Give me some information not some random link to another wiki page... tell me something... I have a business to run. PurpleCityCeo (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)PurpleCityCEO

Ask about a policy

Having just been surprised by an accusation of forum shopping for taking a question under dispute to a guideline talk page (after an article RfC had not produced a consensus), I looked up what WP:DR says on the issue, and I am surprised to see it only encourages asking at policy talkpages. Is that the intended meaning? Are discussions at guideline talk pages such as WT:MOS not part of dispute resolution? Or should the wording be changed to "Ask at the talk page of a policy or guideline relevant to the issue"? Hans Adler 13:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a sensible suggestion, though it doesn't address the serious problem that WP hasn't got an adequate DR system: some disputes are never resolved. Peter jackson (talk) 09:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute, and the dispute IS over the content of an article,

"If you have taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute, and the dispute is not over the content of an article, you can request Arbitration."" -- fair enough.

The implication seems to be that, if you have taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute, and the dispute is over the content of an article, there is no further mechanism for resolving the dispute.

Am I misunderstanding this? Dlabtot (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you're not. Bizarrely as it seems, Wikipedia's bureaucracy is only concerned with disputes over nothing. If it's about making the encyclopedia better or worse, they stay well out of it - that sort of thing is apparently best left to chance.--Kotniski (talk) 05:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

interesting observation. --dab (𒁳) 19:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Incompetent Admins

There are too many admins who whip round causing havoc and not doing their job properly, they make mistakes, are rude to the person who did the work and generally create ill feeling. There are plenty of competent admins, those not prepared to do the job properly but just get kicks out of deleting other peoples work should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KakapoNZ (talk • contribs) 11:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There seem to be admins that don't even read the rules they are citing repeatedly! Tijfo098 (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC wording - What to do when only two users are in a dispute that involves conduct?

It might be good to emphasize further the need for more than two editors being involved in a dispute for an RfC listing. Suggested re-wording: "For disputes involving more than two editors, turn to Wikipedia:Requests for comment. While Request for Comment is the main avenue for disputes about user conduct, you can also request comments on articles, templates, categories, policies and guidelines." SharkD  Talk  03:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree. Why do you believe there needs to be more than two editors involved before an RfC is initiated. To the contrary, I would say there doesn't even need to be a dispute. Dlabtot (talk) 04:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right in that I should have worded my original request as, "Where do people go in cases where there are disputes between two (and only two) users based on user conduct?" WP:RFC/USER stipulates there must be more than two editors. Please forgive the error, and assume I worded it that way originally as that is what I meant. SharkD  Talk  04:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Statistics

Does anyone know of anywhere, either in WP space or not, where somebody's been compiling statistics on effectiveness of DR? Peter jackson (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

illegal israeli settlements

at Rawabi's page, there was a statement saying that the israeli settlements in the west bank are considered illegal under the international law, and this statement was sourced and referenced from the BBC article, where other statements from this article were used at the same page. but for some unknown reason someone under the name of ElComandanteChe keeps on misusing and violating wikipedias rules and promoting bias and propaganda; and every time i add that statement back, that user keeps on deleting it. please take an action--213.6.11.49 (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Solved by admin intervention per WP:ANI. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

What if the dispute is about copyright?

There's nothing in this gigantic policy about that. See for example: Talk:High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection#Extension of copyright to master key. Who makes the final determination about legality here? Tijfo098 (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Unai Emery - Dispute/Edit war

I really need some assistance (please) with this issue, which threatens to escalate. I have tried to discuss this with the other user, to no avail. His reversions and additions in this article are poor overall - although i am accused in edit summaries of precisely that - i improve article overall (reverting POV, replacing dashes, correcting box stats per LINK#1, correcting language) he reverts everything, without any explanation but the obvious ("i am better than you").

Also, i have already been insulted severely over this article after i protected page (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VascoAmaral&diff=324464489&oldid=324303890), this is seriously getting over the top, out of hand. Some inputs please.

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Grammatical changes

I have made some grammatical changes to improve readability Vaultdoor (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Problems with this page listed at RfC on Dispute Resolution

Check them out and comment here at RfC. Bring any specific proposals here in this or their own sections as you prefer. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Dispute on consensus at page India

Hello,

This is regarding a dispute at the following page: India, the issue is discussed at length here on discussion board: Dispute on consensus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:India#No_consensus_in_the_secondary_and_tertiary_sources_for_India_also_Bharat.

From my side all the required information is presented, and consensus was sought. Still the editors are not willing to co operate and come to consensus. I had also presented a list of doubts and relevant clarity in the end, about 25 issues in all, which is ignored. I am also posted a warning here.

I would like to therefore take up the dispute here so that the consensus can be agreed to, which is not apparently though all reasons and sources are presented at the discussion page. I would like to know steps needed from my side, so that I can present more clarifications and sources as needed.

Also posted at RFC location in case that is its correct position:( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Dispute_on_consensus_at_page_India )

Thank you..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 11:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

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....} 08:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

auto-censured 84.210.21.34 (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC) SOMEONE IS MESSING WITH LANA CLARKSONS ARTICLE HERE ON WIKIPEDIA ! THET FIRST REMOVED HER OFFICIAL 2002 PHOTO ! i WOULD LIKE SOMEONE TO CONTACT WIKIPEDIA AND REENTER THAT PHOTO OF LANA !!!

Clarification

In the content section it says "If the previous steps fail to resolve the dispute, but the dispute has been identified as a content dispute, one of the following methods can be tried." Does this mean only 1? Is it forbidden to try more than 1, either simultaneously or successively? Peter jackson (talk) 08:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's not the intended meaning - I changed "one" to "any".--Kotniski (talk) 11:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Black Mamba and King Cobra articles

Can I please get an admin to check these out. I keep explaining to an amateur (who admits snakes are just a hobby) that because the king cobra is so big and produces so much venom in a single bite, that evolution never required it to evolve and produce a very toxic venom (it's venom is among the least potent in among elapids). He cites references which are unverifiable (without links) and I don't believe them to be true because I have a degree that is relevent to the subject and I know the well known scientists who study these snakes and have read many of their books and research papers. There is a similar problem with the black mamba article. I went to an admin the other day, but I was told to try to resolve it by discussing it. So I went on to explain and discuss it and he kept on reverting it. His grammar isn't even good and I believe he's likely a teenager or even a young adult who has a "mythical view" of the king cobra. I do not know what to do anymore. The user's name is Fearingpredators. Please go to the talk pages of the King cobra and black mamba to understand better. Bastian (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Can an editor revert a dispute tag

There is a dispute on a page and two editors have placed a {{disputed}}tag but is being reverted by another editor on the grounds that there is no dispute. Can an editor revert a disputed tag? The strange thing is that there are not only disputes on the talk page about contents but also a dispute about whether dispute tag should be placed. I'd be glad to know the rule position on this one. AshLin (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any rule about it. You can try asking an admin for a third opinion, I suppose.--Kotniski (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

DR mailing list

I've proposed the creation of a mailing list for Wikipedia dispute resolution, where I mainly see it as a place we can discuss ways we can resolve content disputes, as well as ideas. The bugzilla request is here. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I see someone's replied there saying you need consensus first, presumably here. Sounds positive to me anyway. Peter jackson (talk) 10:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

In lieu of a mailing list, Steve has created the WikiProject Dispute Resolution for planning, improving, supporting, and discussing dispute resolution. Please join if you're interested in any of those things. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Binding content DR

As has been discussed in the past by some, including myself recently at the Village Pump, there have been issues raised with the lack of a binding way to resolve some content disputes (generally naming diaputes). As a result of this, a few others and myself have created a working draft for a proposed process, which is located here. I'd welcome opinions on the matter, my aim is to make it as simple as possible, with as little bureaucracy as possible. It's still very much a work in progress but I'm just putting it out there for more feedback and opinions. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Requesting assistance to verify sources of information provided for Cung Le articles regarding Nationality

I posted this on The Bushranger's talkpage as well. I am requesting for more editors to look at the current evidence provided and determine a final conclusion, especially since Cyberpower may have not verified his source as compared to the sources I have provided. I am trying to deal with this in a civil manner and would not try to make any personal attacks towards editors nor try to threaten to sue Wikipedia, joke or not. However, I am questioning the source of information regarding Cung Le's Nationality given by both the user Glock and even Cyberpower, who said he was handling the matter. As Wikipedia requires, a source of information needs to be verified. The source for his nationality given by Cyberpower apparently is a user on Facebook that claims to work for Cung Le and knows specifically which citizenships/passports that he holds. ::I am asking directly for more administrators to step in and view and verify this source to be legit, as compared to all the sources I have provided including direct tweets and quotes from Cung Le himself and his website. I further ask for the admins to tell Glock to stay away from my Talkpage and other ways of communicating because I find his comments absolutely ridiculous, outrageous, and disruptive, while I am trying to deal with this in a civil, respectful, and reasonable manner. All I ask if for everything to be verified, just like Wikipedia requires. I find the co-worker who claims to be Cung Le's co-worker rather suspicious, and evidence must be shown on how he knows the information that is being seeked. If this can not be provided, I ask that Cung Le's Nationality be reverted back to an American of the U.S.A. Please clarify if you can. This is the Facebook user in question who claims to be working for Cung Le and knows exactly which citizenship he holds: redacted This is Cung Le's facebook page (redacted) where a user claims to represent Wikipedia (Cyberpower?) directly posted on Cung Le's wall and received a response from the user who claims to know specifically what type of citizenship and passport that Cung Le holds. However, he has yet to provide enough evidence that 1) He actually works for Cung Le 2) That he specifically knows that he has a Vietnam passport. To me it is highly suspicious, if this can be proven otherwise and that his claims are legit, I will stop from dispute and no longer further try to research this issue. But again, all I ask is for more admins to take a look at this. No disrespect to you Cyberpower, but I just find the current source from a Facebook user that claims to work for Cung as not enough proof PinoyFilAmPride (talk) 09:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Pinoy was right, I was wrong to use Facebook as source. I goofed as an editor. Everybody makes mistakes.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 10:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

There are a of good things about Wikipedia. There are also crazy people who are allowed to drive away legit contributors and people who would otherwise contribute. The fact that no one will take a stand about all this, or if there is a way to complain it is hidden under layers and layers of techno babble. I will not mention any names but if you look at the article about class rings some fool is preventing any changes to be made to it just because he is a jerk.

Would like to contribute money but won't. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.142.83.225 (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for your comments and opinion on Wikipedia talk:Representation

Please place your comments on the talk page, not here. Whenaxis (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Requests for comment through article talk pages

This guideline states that:

“ Requests for comment through article talk pages is the remaining avenue for requesting outside input on article content or proposed article content. Unlike mediation, RfC through article talk pages can still proceed even if a party is unwilling to participate. ”

But this isn't really correct. Most editors persue RfCs way before it goes to mediation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that page is very unclear about the structure, if any, of the DR process. Some cynics may suspect that this is deliberate. Peter jackson (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, unless someone objects, I'll change it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Forking as a method for dispute resolution

A couple of years ago, I wrote an essay (User:Ravpapa/The Politicization of Wikipedia) in which I suggested using content forking as a means of dispute resolution. The idea was that if two warring groups could not agree on the wording of an article, that two subpages be created within the article space, where the two sides could develop their ideas, then negotiate (if possible) an agreed version. The essay also suggested some editing and mediation rules that would make merger of the versions a possibility.

The idea was fairly roundly rejected by just about everyone. But User:Peter jackson has just brought to my attention that this very method is being used at the Knowino and Wikinfo Wikis. Is anyone aside from myself interested in knowing how well this method works in practice? Or should I just let the idea recumb into its current moribund state? Regards --Ravpapa (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to mention WikiSynergy also uses it. Peter jackson (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This may not be the best place to raise the issue. Traffic here seems pretty low. Notice this talk page hasn't been archived since 2007. You might try Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution mentioned above. Peter jackson (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI and WP:DR

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents has been nominated for deletion. Please join the discussion here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The MfD has been withdrawn so the discussion has moved to this page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Guideline proposal

Wikipedia:Avoiding talk-page disruption proposes a new guideline related to this one. Its adoption is presently under discussion using an RfC located here. Please comment. Brews ohare (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This proposal has been changed to an essay, and significantly revised. Matters related to WP:Dispute resolution are discussed in the essay WP:Avoiding talk-page disruption and an RfC has been posted requesting comments here. Please provide your advice. Brews ohare (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

continual nominations for page moves?

Not against any particular person but just how often do articles get to have move requests happen before it starts setting a precedent that we can just keep reopening RMs every few weeks? We have "Sophie Lefevre" with a move request in august and one that happened 6 weeks ago to no avail. Now another one that wastes a lot of time. I wasn't sure if I should report it somewhere and where the best place to report it would be. There was complaining last time that it was too soon and now it's only few weeks. It seems like this time it really should be stopped by an administrator but I wasn't sure where to look for policy or guidelines. Thanks. 75.16.42.177 (talk) 06:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This depends on the specifics of the situation. If the requested moves and other behaviour of the editors involved amount to disruptive editing, then you should post at WP:ANI to ask for the disruptive users to be given sanctions. If there are legitimate content issues involved in the requested moves, you should post at the dispute resolution noticeboard to get the advice of editors there on what to do next. You should know that most admins don't take kindly to frivolous requests at ANI though - beware of low-flying WP:BOOMERANGs! Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I just thought that maybe I missed some wikipedia policy or guideline or consensus on a situation like that. It seems it could be abused terribly if not subject to some kind of posted constraint and maybe someone here better at general policy than I would know. Again thanks. 75.16.42.177 (talk) 06:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Platinum

I think platinum belongs under dispute after all of the non-communicative arguments over it. John was the first to revert my edit, but he never got any more involved, despite suggesting we take it to the talk page. Toddst1 was next, but gave me a warning for starting an "edit war" (despite the fact I tried to tell him I was still learning the rules), and saying he wasn't going to get anymore involved, which wasn't helpful, since he did not give me any feedback on how to properly make the transaction I wanted to. At least the last user who reverted my edit explained to me why he did it, instead of not saying anything helpful. I need feedback, not chastisement or notification that I broke "some rule"!--96.242.163.228 (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the way dispute resolution is done or the subject of dispute resolution, not for requesting dispute resolution for a particular problem. I'd point you to an appropriate place to get help, but I'm not sure from the foregoing exactly what it is that you're trying to request. You might be able to find help either at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page or by asking a question at the Teahouse, or if you're sure that dispute resolution is what you want, choose from one of the options in the right-hand sidebar here (but after you've clicked on one, please be sure to read all the requirements and guidelines for whichever option you choose before making a request in that forum). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarify wording?

Regarding formal mediation: this page says "Mediation cannot take place if all parties are not willing to take part". The double negatives makes the grammar hard to parse; and it could be interpreted a couple of different ways. It is trying to say "Mediation requires the assent of all parties" or "If any party objects to mediation, it is not an appropriate process". Since this page is a pretty high-visibility page for newcomers, I'm wondering if the wording should be improved. Thoughts? --Noleander (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Seeing no responses, I'll go ahead and change the wording. Feel free to revert & discuss if not satisfied. --Noleander (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, it looks like another editor already made the change. --Noleander (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Placement of 'RfC through article talk pages' section

The section 'RfC through article talk pages' appears after more escalated approaches, such as Formal Mediation. I would suggest moving it earlier in the article, perhaps between 'Wikiquette assistance' and 'RfCN' in the earlier section titled 'Seeking preliminary advice and feedback to resolve the dispute' This makes sense since an RfC is really a preliminary step. I realize the article doesn't list steps in strictly chronological order, but there is a sense of escalation as you move down the article. Posted 12:46, 7 June 2012 by Coastside

There's actually an argument to be made that RFC is a court of last resort. See my comment in this thread for more detail. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I read through these discussions. I had assumed formal mediation would be more of a last resort than RFCs. For one thing I would think having more participants would cause more opening discussions than closing discussion. For another, I would think requesting additional input would be less of a deviation from the normal editing process than going into formal mediation. Regardless, the point of my post was that I thought RFCs were in fact an earlier recourse to pursue, and apparently that wasn't the case. I wonder what the statistics are. I would think more editors request commentary through RFCs than request formal mediation. Coastside (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Editing Mihnea Moţoc

The page Mihnea Moţoc is not supposed even to exist because there is an important person Mihnea Ioan Motoc but his name has nothing to do with Mihnea Moţoc so i suggest you delete this page from en.wikipedia.org.Receptie123 (talk) 05:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

IRC Office hours on dispute resolution.

Hello. I will be hosting a IRC office hours session on dispute resolution and my fellowship this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC. It will be hosted in the #wikimedia-office ^connect channel. Your participation would be appreciated. Regards, Szhang (WMF) (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Refusals to discuss

There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Reversion_after_failure_to_discuss which affects DR and in which this community may be interested. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

WQA may close

There is a proposal at the Village Pump to close the Wikiquette page. The consensus appears to be moving in favor of closing, but the discussion is still on-going. If it were closed, this project page would need to be modified to remove WQA and perhaps replace it with something (perhaps a link to Dispute Resolution process or Third Opinion because the latter may take on much of the workload). Please comment at the Village Pump discussion (not here, so the talk is colocated) if you have any thoughts. --Noleander (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

RFC on dispute resolution

Hi all - I've opened an RFC on dispute resolution, in which I've proposed a few changes to the way DR works. You can find the RFC at this page. Regards, Szhang (WMF) (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

A question about dispute-resolution

I am currently involved in a rather heated dispute at Talk:Tanka prose, and I am not sure what to do about it.

The dispute involves one user (User:Tristan noir) who created an article four years ago on the modern English genre of tanka prose. The article, however, made bizarre, unsourced claims about originating in ancient Japanese literature, despite the term being anachronistic in reference to pre-modern Japanese works.

He/she (from here on, for convenience, I will assume the user is male) basically claimed the article as his own, and almost any edit by other editors was immediately reverted.

When I first came across the article, I was very confused; I thought "tanka prose" was a translation of the Japanese term uta monogatari, which literally means "poem (exclusively, tanka) prose-fiction", so I moved the article to that location, citing a lack of usage of the term tanka prose in reputable secondary sources on Japanese literature. He responded by blankly reverting my move and other edits, as well as User:Bagworm's removal of a few unsourced statements he had made.

He still refused to cite reputable sources that backed up his claims.

I responded by re-reverting his unsourced reversion, and posting a comment on the Talk page where I cited several sources and challenged what little literature he quoted (which was written by people with very little awareness of Japanese language/literature). He responded by finally admitting that he was writing based on modern English literature, and claimed (unjustifiably) that his article had never claimed to be about Japanese literature.

At around this time, he apparently called in an ally, User:Kujakupoet, to back him up. This latter user made personal attacks against me, and completely ignored the substance of our dispute. (Kujakupoet suddenly appeared and made single comment, claiming to have "just happened to be" looking for a tanka prose article and been shocked by what he somehow knew was the work of one editor and knew to post on the talk page in response -- this seems highly unlikely.)

I then suggested a compromise, which he immediately agreed to that the article I produced at uta monogatari remain as is, and tanka prose (then a redirect) be rewritten by him to focus exclusively on the modern English genre, and not to make bizarre claims about ancient Japanese literature.

However, I realized that his sources all made the same bizarre claims as his article had, and it would be difficult to construct an encyclopedia article without using these sources, so I posted a hidden remark on the then-redirecting talk page expressing this fear. I hoped that he would take this opinion into account in his rewrite, or reconsider producing a rewrite at all.

But when he finally produced his rewrite, I was disappointed with the results.

His new article made the same claims of ancient Japanese origin as before, in clear violation of our agreement. Except that this time, he had worded the article in such a way that it never directly stated that "tanka prose" existed in ancient Japan, but rather included a lengthy remark about so-called "prosimetra" (prose-plus-poetry) in ancient Japan.

I never disputed that ancient Japanese literature combined poetry and prose, but merely stated that the term "tanka prose" would be anachronistic, and is therefore not used in academic literature. His new rewrite, however, basically implies that the ancient Japanese literature discussed is in some way related to modern English "tanka prose".

He included references to two apparently reliable sources on ancient Japanese literature, but one of them is very old and out-of-print in both Japan and the United States (a complete copy on Amazon.jp would cost well over 10,000 yen [2][3][4][5][6], and one in English would cost $500 dollars [7][8][9]) and is very difficult to access. The other, an article by Helen McCullough, has clearly been taken out of context (he cited earlier in the dispute its inclusion in a book about prosimetra as being in itself evidence in his support).

He continually refuses to provide quotations from these sources that justify the use of the phrase "tanka prose".

I initially tried to remove one very bizarre statement from the new article (which wasn't even in the previous version) that nikki bungaku (diary literature) includes fictional tales (monogatari) and poetry anthologies (shū). It is reasonable to discuss a certain small sub-genre of waka-shū (private collections that are written in a diary-style) as falling under the category of nikki-bungaku, but not all waka-shū, which most notably includes Imperially-sponsored anthologies (chokusen-shū). (The statement included one reference to the aforementioned obscure/expensive source, but clearly was out-of-context, because no respected source on Japanese literature would make such a claim.) He immediately reverted my edit, apparently thinking that simply having a source that claims something remotely similar to what the statement claims makes this behaviour justifiable.

As of now, I have grown weary of being cautious in my edits, and I am tired of being attacked personally and professionally without being able to fight back (I have tried throughout to be civil). I posted on the talk page that, since a significant portion of the middle of the new article signified a clear violation of the previous agreement, I intended to delete it, before going ahead with it.

I am not sure about what Tristan noir's response to this will be, but I was wondering if anyone has any advice about this issue? The user in question clearly does not understand Wikipedia policies on civility and other concepts, and I have become very weary of dealing with his personal attacks. I know the dispute still isn't at the point of seeking arbitration, but I'm not sure about bringing in opinions from the Wikipedia community. Since he has cited "sources" (he appears to have read them with the prejudiced attitude of looking for sources to justify statements he had already formulated), and it may appear to the overwhelming majority of Wikipedians who don't have access to those rare, expensive sources that his statements as they are now are justified. Is it okay to consult an administrator in these circumstances?

elvenscout742 (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm sorry for posting an EXTREMELY long "summary" of the dispute. I wanted to get the facts on record now in case anyone misunderstands the context. My question is really only in the first and last paragraphs. Any help you can provide would be highly appreciated. :) elvenscout742 (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

And if anyone actually checks all the background of this dispute (you have my apologies ;-) ), you will notice that I had harsh words for Jeffrey Woodward (the principle source for Tristan noir's claims) -- that he is non-academic, unreliable, offensive, etc. This might seem extreme out of context, but everything I have read by him contains major problems with his ignorance of classical Japanese literature. It would be very difficult to summarize these problems here, but I actually wrote him an e-mail detailing them and politely requesting that he not repeat them in future publications (they are all recurring errors). I would be happy to post an appropriate portion of the text of this e-mail here or elsewhere on Wikipedia if anyone requires further details. elvenscout742 (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Civility Enforcement RFC

A discussion has been started at WP:CIVILITY regarding Civility Enforcement. Please feel free to comment and provide suggestions. Hasteur (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I ask permission to use {{Sports-reference}} as "external link"

Here the user EatsShootsAndLeaves said: «SportsReference appears to be the same as IMDB ... not a WP:RS, but usable to identify the person through external links». I, therefore, I replaced the note SR in the body of the article with a source from Olympic.org and added as "external link". In response, I received two rollback. Have I done something wrong? --Kasper2006 (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

This is better asked at RS/N. However, if I understand you correctly you added the reference to the body of the article and external links? If so, only use the external link for additional information to expand on the subject that might not be suitable for the article itself.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Graphic image

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

The pyramid graphic was removed in July 2012 here. It was restored in Novermeber 2012 here.

From 2008 through July 2012, File:Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement1.svg was the only image posted at WP:DR. It was considered helpful. The pyramid graphic was mirrored on userpages and in talk-page discussions here. The graphic is also mirrored in other languages, including

• File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement (French).svg
• File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement IS.svg
• File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement NL.svg
• File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement2 NL.svg
• File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement (ru).svg

The specific wording of the pyramid graphic emphasizes a few terms which have recurring significance:

1. Refuting the Central Point → refutes the central point
2. Refutation → finds the mistake and explains why its mistaken using quotes
3. Counterargument → contradicts and then backs it up with reasoning and/or supporting evidence
4. Contradiction → states the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence
5. Responding to Tone → criticizes the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the argument
6. Ad Hominem → attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument
7. Name calling → sounds something like, "You are an ass hat."

At WP:DR, the image caption is an hortatory command: "Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid." This caption summarizes both a problem and a constructive way forward. The image does improve the practical usefulness of this article. --Ansei (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that it adds much to the DR process page. It's a complex enough page as it is with all the vagueness and multiple dispute resolution forums listed. I think what the pyramid accomplishes could also be accomplished with a few words encouraging reasoned arguments. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Different readers have different ways of absorbing information. Some people grasp pictures more readily than text. And, of course, a picture is worth a thousand words. Generally, illustrations are considered to make text more inviting and reader friendly. The pyramid is within the scope of "dispute resolution", in the sense that it summarizes how to conduct oneself while engaged in a dispute. There is no harm in including it. --Noleander (talk) 04:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

retiring under a cloud

A problem of a retirement so the editor doesn't bother responding to a charge but other editors invent what are sometimes nonsensical or irrelevant defenses as if the charged editor can't speak for themself seems to occur now and then and it confounds the attempt at a resolution, especially a sanction. If the retirement is real, either permanent or even if temporary but due to a reason unrelated to a possible sanction, it's appropriate to defer the adverse action until unretirement. If the retirement is a temper tantrum, because an editor wants to edit or behave in their own way even though it violates policy or guideline and the retirement is just a means for evasion of a sanction in lieu of answering a charge, then the retirement should be ignored and the procedure should go forward. And we should not have to judge the intent behind a retirement.

I propose that if an action has been started that would be adverse to an editor freely editing and if notice has been provided to that editor, if the editor retires after that notice, the retirement shall be meaningless. Time elapsing for response or change shall continue to be counted. When any such time has elapsed, retirement shall be equivalent to the editor not objecting to the adversity of the action. For example, if the adverse action would be a block, the block would go forward as if the editor had no objection and it would not be reversible (the editor could not be unblocked) until the editor unretired and replied with ground enough for an unblock.

If multiple actions have been begun, notice of the first one begun being before the current retirement would be ground enough for the retirement to be ignored for all of the actions.

I originally brought this up at Wikipedia talk:Retiring (the section Retiring Under a Cloud), but no one replied.

Comments?

Nick Levinson (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

When you say "retirement shall be meaningless," why do you think it has meaning to begin with? Have you seen an instance in which some time limit was extended due to an editor's announced retirement? Or something like that? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I recall one or two cases where editor/s retired, got a pass because of having retired, and shortly unretired and doubt was raised as to the authenticity of the retirement, but I don't recall names or other particulars. I have also seen nonretirement cases in which one editor defends another editor, who refuses to answer a charge, on the ground that the one editor helps students on unrelated occasions, which was irrelevant. It seems retirement is an easy route to abuse of policies and guidelines, but I don't know how often it's applied. If a restraint on the practice already exists in some form, I didn't see it. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that there's any restraint on the retirement practice because it is pretty meaningless as nothing more than a personal statement of current intent which may change within nanoseconds after an editor has proclaimed it. As such, an individual editor or administrator may choose to give it some credibility or treat it with a grain — or mountain — of salt, and I suspect that's what you've seen. I'd not be inclined, myself, to support a restriction on that discretion but at the same time I wouldn't be inclined to restrict the practice by creating effects, either positive or negative, that it does not now have. Someone who really wants to leave and burn their bridges can do so by vanishing or asking for a self-block, but I don't think most experienced editors give much credibility to a {{Retired}} until the user's contribution log shows that they've been gone for a substantial period of time. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not exactly the same as retiring, but I have seen many cases where a case that looks like it is moving toward a block is dropped with a comment like "he hasn't edited for over a month". And in most cases that makes perfect sense.

Alas, I know of no way to watchlist a contributions page, so it is easy to miss if the user starts editing again a few months later. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You can't watchlist it, but according to Wikipedia:RSS#RSS_feeds, last bullet point, you can set up a RSS feed to monitor anyone's contribution list. I don't know beans about RSS, so I can't say how well that would work, how big a PITA it would or would not be, etc., but at least it's possible. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

National security of the US in in danger (Black list has executions as comparison with Gestapo)

National security of the US in in danger. Black list with Gestapo - very bad thing. Jimbo does not know about rollbacks: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=523162234#Notifications_of_the_official_page_of_USA.GOV_and_Jimbo_Wales_also (he - not crazy to do so). I am member of the community (do not need make rollback). We simply must take control such important situation (not make worse). And ask you watch for this situation (to provide control better). Great danger is: Gestapo and USA often use executions (comparison in the black list exists on highest level: FBI can be interested to finish this trouble in the US jurisdiction). Russian protectors of Human rights act on legal grounds now (in our country death penalty - is very bad thing, the more so). FBI can punish Jimbo (this situation can be changed using decision of Jimbo). Thank you. P.S. If Jimbo Wales knows about this situation - you can make rollback. - 95.29.70.221 (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC).

I'm sorry, but this talk page is for discussing how dispute resolution is to be designed or carried out at Wikipedia. If you wish to make a request for dispute resolution, please use one of the methods or forums listed on the main DR page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Ethics section

I've added an section giving proposed, but non-binding, ethics principles for doing DR work. Your review is invited. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I propose that we centralize discussion about the new section here. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment - The new ethics principles appear to be sound. A bit platitudinous - but if they were not written down, they'd need to be written down :-) A procedural observation: DR is a full-fledged policy. Making major changes to a WP policy is a Big Deal, and should be vetted on the Talk page first. Essays can be created overnight, but a policy? Adding so much without prior discussion disrespects the policy. Other than that, looks good! --Noleander (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think that they'd be too controversial or require too much discussion, so I just was bold so as to make them a little easier to edit. We can move them to a drafting page if you feel strongly about it. You know I'm easy, Nol. Also, I felt free to be a bit platitudinous since they're more moral admonishments than enforceable rules. Since there are ten of them, I did consider inserting them in the form of a graphic with them inscribed on two tablets but that just seemed ... too much. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, procedurally, I have not yet dropped an announcement at the Village Pump policy section, with the thought that the DR community might get the first whack at them. If anyone thinks there ought to be one there, be my guest or yank my chain. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem: I'm not suggesting that the new material be removed. Seeing the material in context makes it more easier to assess. I'm just accustomed to seeing proposals for change at WP:Verifiability, where changing a single word takes a month of negotiation on the talk page before it can be implemented :-) --Noleander (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Wording: Item #2: "Wikipedia first": the other nine commandments are verb phrases, which make sense since they follow the intro "whenever you do dispute resolution work...". Item #2 would read better as a verb phrase, e.g. "Put WP first" or "Place WP's interests above your own" or "Give top priority to improving the encyclopedia" etc. --Noleander (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. — TransporterMan (TALK) 02:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added a sappy 11th "thank you" point on a winger. Feel free to be cruel. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think number 6 could be a bit misleading, as some DR volunteers are actual administrators. (Like yours truly.) Also, there could be a place for issuing demands, like "stop edit warring or I will report you to WP:AN3", in really bad cases. On the other hand, I agree with the main thrust of the point, that we don't settle content disputes by decree. I'm not sure about the best wording just now, though. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 04:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the insertion. After speaking to various folks from various forums, I believe that these would be better done, if at all, at each of the various DR forums, customized for each forum and not as policy. I may work on that at each forum, but it's going to be a week or two before I can get a start on it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Just now seeing this. TransportationMan I have a beeter idea. I will leave a note on your talkpage.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

What comes before RfC/U?

I have a problem with a particular WP:SPA who created one article to promote the works of someone he/she seems to be closely linked to. His/her article was personally offensive to me since it claimed that all of Japanese literary study throughout history was incompetent and incomplete. The SPA had almost never touched any other article until I posted his/her article for deletion, at which point he/she started posting similar spammy links on other pages, and following me to other articles to undermine me. I tried taking a wikibreak, but the spam/harassment continued; I tried moving to other articles, but he/she followed me there too; I am beginning to get very frustrated with this user's behaviour. I considered posting the dispute to RfC/U, but then I saw the two users requirement that says at least two users have to have contacted the problem user and attempted to resolve the dispute. What is the proper way of dealing with a problem like this, involving user conduct, when I am the only one being harassed? elvenscout742 (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You could file a notice at WP:AN or WP:ANI. But better yet is to try to ignore the user and see if they go away. Just focus on your own edits, and on improving articles. Wait a couple of weeks, and see if the problem resolves itself. --Noleander (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment requires two editors warn the editor being commented on before a filing can be made. This means that you, as one editor cannot have been the only one to warn and discuss the issue with the editor before an RFC/U is made. AN/I and AN is not always the best place to take user conduct issues that involve two users unless it is an obvious problem or incident that requires immediate action. If a user is truly wikistalking and trying to undermine your work you can contact an administrator personally on their talk page, explaining the issue briefly with diffs to each concern. You can try to deal with the content issues one by one through the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or through Administrator Noticeboards if the issue needs immediate action or attention. This may garner a warning to the other editor. The true precurser to RFC/U may well be Wikipedia:Third opinion, because it does not require the dispute be only a content dispute as DR/N does. Read the guidelines. Simply put, nothing happens in wikipedia without some discussion. If a problem exists then you should take every route to draw attention to the real issues. If you have a clear case of wikistalking that has gotten out of hand and you can demonstrate this clearly with diffs, you should take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

One more word: I've not looked at your edit history so I do not know if this is apropos specifically to you or not, but just in case it is: Always remember that here at Wikipedia any serious inquiry into an editor's conduct will almost always be accompanied by an equally serious examination of the conduct of the editor raising the matter. It is not at all uncommon for either the tables to turn and only the complainant be sanctioned or for both editors to be sanctioned. Again, I have no reason to believe that you may be at risk for such a reversal but you need to be aware of the very real possibility of that happening if your own conduct is subject to being criticized. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

IRC Office Hours

Hi all, I'll be holding office hours session on DR in about 30 minutes in #wikimedia-office. Your feedback and comments are welcome. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Re add page: Tiffany Alvord

I think that that page shouldn't have been deleted and is worth significance. The article may have been written and formatted incorrectly not showing information properly, but nevertheless less it should be remade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.129.35 (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but this talk page has nothing to do with that. This is a place to discuss how dispute resolution works at Wikipedia. Since Tiffany Alvord was deleted more than a year ago (after having been deleted 5 times previously), the usual deletion appeal procedures are not likely to be of any use. Consider making a request at Articles for Creation, but it's not going to work unless you can show that it meets the requirements set out here. Just complaining about the deletion or requesting recreation isn't going to be enough, alone. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

When an article is not stub

In Wikipedia:Stub - Removing stub status is: «Once a stub has been properly expanded and becomes a larger article, any editor may remove its stub template. No administrator action or formal permission is needed» Therefore an article with infobox template (with photo), 4 or 5 sections (included biography and achievements), references, external links: absolutely not a stub, maybe expandable, but not a stub. User:Lugnuts don't think so and revert my job (an example). Please help me. ;-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 10:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:STUB clearly states "A stub is an article containing only one or a few sentences of text". Infoboxes, headings, etc do not count towards sentences. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

This is an opinion of Lugnuts. In fact: «Many articles still marked as stubs have in fact been expanded beyond what is regarded as stub size. If an article is too large to be considered a stub but still needs expansion, the stub template may be removed and appropriate {{expand section}} templates may be added». --Kasper2006 (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Procedural objection: I know everyone meant well, but the above is not a discussion of the project page Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. The proper response should have been to direct the poster to an appropriate forum, not to respond and turn an off-topic comment into an off-topic discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Is this a violation of FOC?

I have a question about whether a specific comment is a violation of WP:FOC. I'm biased since I'm the target, so I'm looking for an objective opinion, before I take further action, from someone who understands and appreciates the purpose and applicability of WP:FOC (which is why I'm asking here).

I've put the details on my user talk page at User talk:Born2cycle#Is this a violation of FOC?. Please answer there. Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

FOC cannot be "violated" because it's actually only a recommendation of a technique to use to avoid conflict, not a rule or conduct guideline for which someone can be blocked or banned. The closest thing to FOC that is such a rule is No personal attacks and there is a huge amount of debate and argumentation right now over question of when and how to enforce that policy. I would be surprised if any administrator were willing to do anything about the comment which you're asking about, except perhaps issue a warning (and possibly not even that). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Well put me down for putting some teeth into FOC. I think stricter adherence would raise the level of civility and professionalism here more than anything else could. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution:

The parlamentary format: In easy to manage baby steps for aspergers & autists with sufficient IQ point coupons (special two for one deal, by one snicker bar, obtain 2 IQ points. [only redeamable at barnes & nobles for your next hard core engineering purchase]) I) Start a debate team, life public coverage, and make a fool of yourselfs. II) Either A) Call the diplomatic office to send in a diplomat. B) Call your lawyer. C) Buy a gun. D) Go home, pout, & suck your thumb while in the curled up ´want momma´ position. E) Start a war (solely for large conconglomerate dispute resolutions although it´s use is known to be solely for dispute resolutions by and through those with no real inkling of what an economy is).

Note: These statements are copyrighted, they are originating, like pretty much anything else that is placed down, and according to your policy, must therefore be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.94.187.76 (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Input needed regarding new "conflict resolution" project (and process?)

Input is needed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Conflict_Resolution#How_is_this_project_different_from_Dispute_Resolution_project to determine if a new project (and perhaps DR process) is needed. --Noleander (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The project gained 16 members within a few hours. There is clearly support for this concept and it defers from Project Dispute Resolution as that concerns content disputes, while WP:ECR or (WP:RECON) is for conduct and editor conflict. This is not civility enforcement. This is about severe conduct and conflict and is being designed as a route for situations were other venues are not appropritae for those issues to be addressed. I actually think this is a missing link of sorts for our DR process. At the moment it is in a very early concept stage and has little overlap to other projects. Lets see where this goes.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Help with dispute on Pope Francis talk page

I asked for help with a dispute on ANI, where it was suggested I bring the issue here, instead. Unfortunately, I do not think the dispute can end without help from outside. Here is the discussion on the talk page of Pope Francis: here. Here is the quote that is in question: "Unlike John Paul II, who as a child had positive memories of the Jews of his native Poland but due to the Holocaust had no Jewish community to interact with in Poland as an adult, Pope Francis has maintained a sustained and very positive relationship with a living, breathing [Jewish] community in Buenos Aires." Essentially, one user (and only one user), Herzen is making the claim that:

• The Jerusalem Post is not an appropriate source because Israel is an "apartheid state"
• Using a quote about the Holocaust that mentions Pope Francis and Pope John Paul II implies that Pope Benedict XVI (because he is NOT mentioned) is a Nazi(!)
• Mentioning the word "Holocaust" is automatically contentious, especially in the minds of "Muslims and Arabs"
• Because of the alleged "contentiousness" of this quote, it violates BLP and can be deleted regardless of the discussion on the talk page (where, by the way, no other editor who has weighed in has agreed that the Jerusalem Post should be ruled out as a source, or that there is any contentiousness in the quote either because the Holocaust is mentioned or Benedict XVI is not mentioned). I find the claims against this quote to be inappropriate in and of themselves...and unreasonable. If the quote is deleted again, I will not revert because it is already to the point of an edit war and I have never been in an edit war...so I would appreciate help from this page instead. Thanks, NearTheZoo (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: I see that this was not the right place to ask for a dispute resolution process. I have now registered my request in the right place! (Still learning.) Sorry for the confusion, NearTheZoo (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Flow

In case anyone isn't aware of this already, Wikipedia:Flow is software that is planned to replace our current way of editing talk pages. I would encourage you all to take a look and possibly comment on the project. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Threats given for expanding Minorities in Pakistan

See this to know more, the issue is quite grave. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Shutting down 3O, mark historical

Sorry but I need to vent some. If editors can completely refuse to respond to a 3rd Opinion and go straight on reverting what is the purpose. "I disagree with that and don't feel the need to follow through with more formal DR but I'll continue reverting." This is the viewpoint I get from my recent encounter with 3O when trying to get annother editor to follow consensus at Talk:John McCaa. User decided it'd be a grand time to start liquidating a category into smaller ones while ignoring consensus at the individual article, the MOS, VPP, etc. Heck, even the 3O did not prevent him from emptying the category out and only when I reported him to AIV did he bring forth examples for more detailed categorization, still refusing to get a consensus, but perfectly happy to revert over and over... Hasteur (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I supplied not one but FOUR bits of proof as to where he lives. There is a category 'People from Irving, Texas' already and that's where McCaa belongs(with another 39 persons who have lived there)....William 17:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Only after I took you to AIV. You're supposed to bring proof long before that stage. But whatever, I'm going semi-retired and challanging Wikipedia to answer some questions. Hasteur (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Wizard

Anyone know the status of the wizard that was supposed to be on/linked to from this page? Fellow Steven Zhang was working on it about a year ago. --Elvey (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It's kinda been put on the back burner. Some basic code for it does exist, but in recent times things with dispute resolution have been going a bit tough, and my energies have been focused there. Steven Zhang (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Backlog at 3O

There's quite a backlog at 3O if anyone would care to lend a hand. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Petition of help

I see myself in an awkward situation by user Lecen.

The article Peter III of Aragon had during two years (since 2011) the image Pedro II de Aragón.jpg on the infobox.

In October 2013, user Srnec changed the image without consensus. We had an edition war, but we began to speak. In this moment, user Lecen (who had had a conflict with me in Pedro II of Brazil) intervened in the article by first time. He accused me of being the cause of the conflict and removed my editions. I said him that was the Srnec's change the cause and that the previous version must be live until the consensus. He didn't hear and presented a complaint against me. And I was punished. Now, he haunts me. I have filed a complaint against another user and he has come to discredit me by my background. And he has returned to delete the previous image, the image of before the discussion, without reasons and also threatens to report me if I restart.--EeuHP (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see the notice at the top of this page. Requests made here are not answered. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

So I guess the person who sent me here has not done a good job.--EeuHP (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Madrid-Barajas Airport

The article has been renamed as Adolfo Suárez Airport, well this name is not correct as seen at Ministerio de Fomento of Spain which says it'll be renamed as Adolfo Súarez, Madrid-Barajas Airport. The new name has not been oficially published yet so the page should remain as Madrid-Barajas Airport until the new name becomes official. --AMPERIO (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@AMPERIO: Hello, I think you've misstaken the purpose of this talk page. The purpose here is to talk about how to improve Dispute Resolution, not to help you resolve your individual dispute. Please consider reporting your dispute at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Hasteur (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Hasteur:Ok sorry, I think it's already solved. --AMPERIO (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Unresolved case

I feel im being mistreated by a couple of administrators at the moment, recently i had my account blocked by (Future perfect sunrise) after i tried to undo vandalism of the paragraph which i created, before that my work was continually being undone by administrator Dougweller , i feel he may also be using sleepers and undeclared alternative accounts to manufacture reasons to omit sourced information , Ive tried to expand the genetics section of the Cro Magnon article which is much needed but the same Administrator keeps undoing the material with current reasons being that the designation Cro Magnon is not mentioned in the sources when it is highlighted that EEMH is another designation in the lead of the article,i made a fix which i thought was not necessary and then the problem started again,he seems to be accepting obviously unacceptable sources from other editors,i had already conceded to his continued undoing of lead material which was accurate but again unacceptable by his standards, he now has appeared again in a renewed effort to removed sourced material,from what i can gather the only thing he seems to be continually trying to remove from the article is material highlighting one particular ethic group, to try and hide this i believe he is now creating new accounts which show signs of a previous blocked editor and then suddenly he appears again removing the entire section hiding the fact that he is only concerned about removing one paragraph which mentions the Irish ethnic group, if r1b1 is not his sleeper then why is he supporting edits of r1b1 who is a puppit of Paleolithic man, but i cant imagine Paleolithic man would blatantly pick up where he left off as his first edit as a new user, and X editor Paleolithic man was in agreement that both the Irish and Basque should remain in the article ,ive left this for a few more days now and it seems that there is no effort being made to rectify the issue, i usually do not edit on wiki but i found myself having to constantly undo vandalism of virtually the only article ive edited , the objection to my paragraph was in support of the Basque ethnic group as having the highest rate of R1b,from my research i found it to be among the [Gaelic Irish] where is reaches 99%, but under national grouping there seems to be a relatively recent large scale immigration of a Scottish ethnic group ( now known as ulster scots) into the the north east of Ireland who are predominantly an R-M420 ethnic group and this is why Irish as a whole show the rate of R1b1a2 (R-M269) at 85.4% but if grouped this way it is neither the Basque 87.1% or the Irish who have the highest rate of R1b paternal lineage, but the Welsh 92.3% so either way the current material is incorrect , can you please give me your views on this--Kovkikz (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this page is for discussing the policies under which dispute resolution should be provided here at Wikipedia, not for making dispute resolution requests. Please review the main page to which this talk page is attached for a discussion of the available dispute resolution options. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Dispute on the Yezidi article

There is an unknown User on the Yezidi webpage who uses some random Webpage as source for obscure claims. These kind of sources do not fit the Wikipedia criteria. Not only that does he also ignore statements from his own article and only uses those phrases which suit himself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazidi

I need some help in resolving this dispute.

Wikisupporting (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed addition to "Avoiding personal attacks"

There is a proposal to add a short paragraph to the "Avoiding personal attacks" section of the No personal attacks policy page. The discussion is Proposed addition to "Avoiding personal attacks". Your participation is welcome. Lightbreather (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Confusing shortcuts

WP:Discussion redirects here and WP:DISCUSSION redirects to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Shouldn't they both redirect to the same place to avoid people using the wrong one? HelenOnline 07:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. They should. In my opinion, they should both redirect to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent change removing OTRS verbiage

I'm not at all certain I can support this change, especially given the limited (almost null) input. OTRS volunteers are often in the position of not being able to explain why an edit is necessary without violating privacy. The removed verbiage does provide for referring to OTRS admins so the ticket can be checked to ensure no bias or proxy is involved. Without that verbiage, I am concerned we will open the door to endless ew problems. KillerChihuahua 15:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Dunno, but I do know this: This policy should merely reflect what the right procedure for this is, and that procedure should be established in the OTRS policy. We in DR don't generally have much of a dog in this hunt, so I've edited the policy to punt this issue back to the OTRS policy page. The questions you raise can be hashed out there. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

This change was a much needed part of the solution to prevent the abuse we've been experiencing. The discussions have been ongoing for some time and this was a partial culmination. OTRS volunteers have no right to violate policy or not follow normal collaborative editing procedures. That's what we've been experiencing. No one is disputing the need to enforce BLP policies. Any BLP issues, whether they are raised through OTRS or elsewhere, can be handled in the normal way. OTRS volunteers who are making non-BLP related edits for COI involved people or organizations have no right to forbid that their edits be reverted or treated like any other controversial edit by a COI person or organization, but that's what's happened. This change by Keegan was a step in the right direction.

I still haven't had anyone, neither ArbCom member, admin, or OTRS admin, point to even ONE single instance where we can't deal with most of these issues in the normal manner without mentioning OTRS, and the demands by OTRS volunteers to be treated like super users akin to Jimbo himself are way out of line, and fortunately not the norm. When it's not a BLP matter, their edits should be treated like any other editor's edits. OTRS is just a means to jumpstart dealing with problematic areas, but much of the time it's used by COI people and organizations as a means to bypass policy and skew content away from NPOV, and some OTRS volunteers have been (unwittingly) acting as meatpuppets for them. That's not right, and it must stop. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The change was to make what was stated on this page reflect OTRS policy. It is OTRS policy that all edits made by OTRS team members must adhere to the policy and guidelines on the project which they are editing. There is not authority to subvert or supersede PAG because an edit is performed by an OTRS team member. The edit went a step towards clarifying that, this step needs further follow through to make sure that OTRS team members and anyone else can clearly understand that OTRS team members are not in any way "super editors" and there edits must follow PAG and may be reverted, challenged and disputed in keeping with PAG. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@KillerChihuahua I can understand the difficulty you and every other OTRS agent is facing. For example you might have made an edit in response to someone writing to OTRS getting upset about something. The last thing that any OTRS agent ants to do is to directly, indirectly or by implication expose who was the person who wrote in to OTRS (especially if a prior dispute had occurred involving the originator). What we are saying now is that edits should be made as if you are making the edit on your own accord, and can be justified on Wikipedia's long-standing policies alone. For instance if a originator wants something removed from the article because he feels it is unjustified, we make that edit saying that it violates WP:V/NOT/etc. rather than to justify it with the existence of a ticket. I know it takes more effort to justify using policy, but policy has always been a stronger, public justification as compared to pointing to a ticket. - Mailer Diablo 08:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

As there is clearly no consensus for any of the changes which have been made here so far (including my own), I've restored the page back to where it was prior to the change KillerChihuahua complained about. When changes at a policy page become controversial, consensus and policymaking through the method established in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Proposals need to be followed. Y'all are at that point. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Another OTRS issue

• I strongly disagree with this edit, especially after reading this ANI thread. It is not our place to tell people what to do when they have an issue with OTRS. TransporterMan quite properly referred all such questions to the Volunteer Response Team Dispute Resolution page. Nor should MrBill3 attempt to make this our fight. We should restore TransporterMan's edit, and if MrBill3 disagrees with what the Volunteer Response Team Dispute Resolution page says, he should bring his concerns up on that page. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• If this must be in the policy, which I disagree with as an OTRS admin, I'd prefer this revision by TransporterMan. The problem with the current revision is that it puts OTRS reverts on par with Arbcom, OS, or CU edits which are governed and policed by local policy, whereas the governance of OTRS is outside of the English Wikipedia. Keegan (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Edits made by OTRS team members are subject to policy and guidelines, including dispute resolution, on English Wikipedia. This dispute resolutions should not imply or assert in any way that normal dispute resolution processes are not completely applicable to OTRS team member edits. It is not policy that all such questions are referred to VRT questions, challenges and any other dispute with an edit performed by an OTRS team member are subject to English Wikipedia policies and guidelines no exeption to PAG nor any requirement to "refer such questions to VRT" exists. There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding. Edits made by OTRS team members have no special privelege or standing and are completely subject to PAG. As this is not clearly understood, it needs to be made explicitly clear in several places. No exception or implication of exeptional process required should be on this page. This is not our fight or anyone elses, it is simply a fact that policy applies to all editors with the exceptions of Arbcom, OS, or CU not OTRS. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, the problem is this policy detail contradicts Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team (as noted on that article's talk page[10]). The two need to be in sync. Ideally this should have been made clearer, but this is the background ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Calaum Jahraldo-Martin

The following discussion 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.

---

caluam jahraldo-martin is not a member of the hull city squad yet he is constantly added by people who have no knowledge of football, no proof to support their argument of being included and no social graces either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.248.212 (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2014 (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.

Inconsistency

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Resolving user conduct disputes says:

If the problem is with the editor's conduct, not their position on some matter of article content, then you may ask an administrator to evaluate the conduct of the user. You can ask for an administrator's attention at a noticeboard such as the administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI).

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#For urgent situations says:

The administrators' noticeboards (e.g. AN and ANI) are not the place to raise disputes over content or conduct. Reports that do not belong at these noticeboards will be closed, and discussions will need to be re-posted by you at an appropriate forum – such as the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN).

Could we have some clarity on the appropriate forum for user conduct disputes (e.g., incivility) following the abandonment of RFC/U? —sroc 💬 18:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, note that the DRN is described as "an informal place to resolve small content disputes" and hence not for user conduct issues. —sroc 💬 18:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the language that conduct issues should not be taken to ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Moderated Dispute Resolution vs. Formal Mediation

What are the differences between moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard and formal mediation at WP:RFM? The two appear to be similar processes in that both are ways to get a third party to work out content disputes. In particular, there is a long-running (almost two years running) dispute at United States that was the subject of moderated dispute resolution more than a year ago, but which hasn't resolved the issue. The suggestion has been made to use formal mediation. My question is what is there about formal mediation that makes it more likely to work when moderated dispute resolution has not worked. If the discussion either becomes interminable or involves personal attacks, how is tendentious discussion handled in moderated dispute resolution, and how is it handled in formal mediation? Since formal mediation has a confidential character and often results in the record of the mediation being deleted, how is the result enforceable? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Moderated content dispute resolution at en-Wikipedia is never enforceable except in those instances in which a clear consensus emerges in resolution of the dispute. Even then, the "enforceability" arises from the consensus itself and not from the dispute resolution process. (And even then yet, the consensus is only enforceable so long as it doesn't change: see consensus can change.) The primary difference between formal mediation and DRN is that the former is by an experienced mediator (anyone, regardless of experience, can be a DRN volunteer) in a much more controlled atmosphere and, ordinarily (but depending on the particular mediator), a much more structured approach to resolving the dispute. Conduct problems are usually handled the same way in both cases, see this section of the mediation policy for the techniques available to either a DRN volunteer or a mediator. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Whenever i take a DRN case, the first words I write are

"Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes."

and I periodically reinforce this by saying things like "my opinion doesn't matter -- the editors who are working on the page need to decide this" or "speaking as the one person here who knows the least about this topic..." I think that most people are actually more willing to listen to my advice knowing that I purposely have zero enforcement authority and that they are completely free to ignore DRN with no adverse consequences. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Sequences of Steps

The policy page defines multiple forums for dispute resolution. It doesn't specify what sequence the various steps should be in. First, it would be useful if it were to specify sequences, when previous procedures do not work.

Second, here are my thoughts as to what the sequence is:

1. Content disputes as such:

a. Article talk page.

b. If only two editors disagree, third opinion.

c1. Request for Comments, especially if the issue can be stated in the form of a question, or if the desire really is for comments.

c2. The dispute resolution noticeboard, which is light-weight mediation.

c3. Requests for Mediation, which is formal mediation.

d. If any of the c options do not work, it may need specialized attention, or there may be a conduct dispute. I see no point in going from WP:DRN to WP:RFM, and trying to take an RFC to mediation is disruptive, and insulting to the community. (A mediator on the other hand may decide that an RFC will work when mediation will not.)

2. Specialized noticeboards, such as WP:ORN, WP:BLPN, WP:FTN, WP:NPOVN.

They may send the editors off to resolve a content dispute, or may identify a conduct dispute.

3. Conduct disputes.

a. WP:ANI or occasionally WP:AN.

If multiple threads at WP:ANI don't help, the issue is probably battleground editing, and in any case ArbCom is the last step.

b. ArbCom, which typically handles issues where conduct such as battleground editing makes other methods of resolution of the underlying content issue impossible.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

In re part 1: It's not been my experience that this is really much of a problem. Except for the requirement of talk page discussion, they can start at any point of the sequence. 3O is self-limiting due to the two-editor requirement and MEDCOM has a prerequisite which allows the chairperson to kick disputes back to lower levels if s/he thinks the dispute could benefit from them. (And I have indeed, as MEDCOM chairperson, been rejecting requests which I thought were too basic or too simple for attention there.) RFC can fit in at any point in the process. The only time this becomes an issue is when there's simultaneous filings in multiple forums and we have to decide which one to close. Generally I've done that by closing the second to be filed except when one is an RFC and, in that case, RFC always remains open and the other is closed (mainly because it's unclear that an editor has the right to close an RFC for that reason, but also because RFC is kind of the ur-process and the one in which the entire community is most involved, at least in theory). If we're going to do something like this, I think it ought to just be a "suggested" order. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez on Cult of personality

The following discussion 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.

---

I allowed myself to reverse the term “former” to “late”. I was even given an edit warning. I am sorry in my books the term “late” is not a euphemism, but indicates to the fact that a person is no longer with us, kicked the bucket, dead, gone, not alive, passed away. The term “former” to my mind indicates that Hugo merely might have went on doing something else after he died. I regard the term “late” as an adjective--Catflap08 (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2015 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2015

Change this:

===Focus on content===
{{further|Wikipedia:Editing policy}}{{clear}}{{shortcut|WP:FOC}}

to this:

{{clear}}
===Focus on content===
{{further|Wikipedia:Editing policy}}{{shortcut|WP:FOC}}

Rationale: If the {{clear}} is needed, it presently results in a gap between the section heading and content. 174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 06:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Split "Other pages with the initialism "DR"" section into WP:DR disambiguation page

Pages such as WP:TROLL and WP:BAR are disambiguation pages which are not inside any of the articles they contain, plus it would be more plausible to split it. --TL22 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, but Dispute resolution is essentially the "primary topic" for the WP:DR shortcut. Stickee (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree. I would, however, like to see WP:DRR given more prominence because it guides the user to the correct forum. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Stickee: Maybe split into WP:DR (disambiguation) instead then? --TL22 (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

There are over 100,000 links to WP:DR, many of which quote specific parts of it, so any disambiguation would have to be on a new page. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with moving the list of other DR topics to a disambiguation page. Deletion Review and Dispute Resolution are the two that people are actually going to look for. I think there should be a dab link at the top saying "WP:DR links here. You may also be looking for Deletion Review. For other uses, please see WP:DR (disambiguation)." --B (talk) 21:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Will be drafting at my sandbox later to see how it goes. --TL22 (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

User:ToonLucas22/Wikipedia:DR (disambiguation) --TL22 (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. You missed Wikipedia:Double redirects, which I've added. So your draft will now be moved to Wikipedia:DR (disambiguation)? Stickee (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

When it is accepted by reviewers of AFC. I will sumbit it now. --TL22 (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Aaaand it has been accepted. --TL22 (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Community sanctions

The note about "Important informatio" at the top of WP:AE says "For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process" with "dispute resolution linking to here. However, community sanctions aren't mentioned at all in this document. WP:General sanctions#Community sanctions says: "The community may also impose general sanctions (known as "Community sanctions") on all editors working in a particular area, usually after a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard. Administrators employing these sanctions must issue appropriate notifications, and log all sanctions imposed, as specified in each case. The issuing of notifications is an informal process whereby an editor that edits a topic area that is subject to general sanctions is made aware that the general sanctions exist. Administrators may not impose sanctions unless an editor has previously been made aware of the existence of these sanctions. Any editor may make another editor aware of the sanctions, and then log the notification, as specified in each case. This notification is not a warning about editor behaviour, and may not be revoked. It is purely informational. Full procedures for issuing notifications mirror those of Arbitration Committee sanctions, as described here. Editors or administrators that wish to overturn an action carried out under the auspices of community-established sanctions must either appeal to the imposing administrator, or gain consensus for an overturning at the administrators' noticeboard. If general sanctions are no longer needed in a topic area, they may be revoked through discussion at the administrators' noticeboard. Likewise, editors wishing to report possible violations of community sanctions should do so at the administrators' noticeboard." I'm adding this to the main page. If any 'see also's are needed, go ahead. Dougweller (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

One point I want to raise is that it's copying of content from a non-policy page (WP:GS) to a policy page (WP:DR). WP:GS seems to be a more descriptive rather than prescriptive page (ie policy). Stickee (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:Discussion and WP:DISCUSSION

It looks like WP:Discussion redirects to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, not to here, so for now I have removed reference to that shortcut from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Resolving content disputes

From what I can see in the edit history at Wikipedia:Discussion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), the redirect was changed in Oct 2014 to point to the same target as WP:DISCUSSION.

I'm bringing it up here to see if we can reach consensus on untangling these two redirects. If not, then it may take an RfC or an RfD to resolve. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

An MfD would perhaps be most appropriate. It's a pretty trivial matter, as very few people refer to talk pages as "discussion pages". Discussion is a process we engage in for consensus-building and dispute resolution. Talk pages are a venue for that but also for a lot of other things that pertain the improvement of the non-talk pages to which they are attached, such as: longer-than-edit-summary logging of changes; reporting problems one does not have the time or competence to fix oneself; suggesting sources that may be useful; etc. So, I would think that both WP:DISCUSSION and WP:Discussion (along with WP:DISCUSS, WP:Discuss) should go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, or perhaps to a disambiguation page at WP:Discussion that DABs between WP:DR, WP:Consensus, and the talk page guidelines. Some cleanup can be done with AWB to hunt down references in policy/guideline/essay pages to "discussion page" and changing it to "talk page". If my memory serves me correctly, the "Talk" tab at the top of our interface years ago used to say "Discuss", and still does on some wikis, but on en.wp it has been "Talk" for a long time now, and our guidelines about them at WP:TALK and WP:USERTALK refer to them as "talk pages" (using "discussion pages" as a more general term including noticeboards and XfDs, not just talk pages).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Specifics

Maybe I'm missing some-thing, but I didn't find what I was looking for here. I thought I would find actual (on-going) disputes, or at least a link to a list of them, so that I could help if any were in my area of expertise. If there is such a link, where is it? If not, could it be added in an easy-to-find place?Kdammers (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no one central location, but you can find lists of disputes and opportunities to help at both Third Opinion and Dispute resolution noticeboard. With 3O you can just jump right in, but if you're going to help at DRN, please sign up on the volunteer list here so the DRN status bot can identify you as a volunteer. Most DRN cases are handled by a single volunteer, so take a new one where all parties have been given notice, there's sufficient article talk page discussion, and all significant parties have given a summary rather than joining in one already in progress. Also be sure to thoroughly read the DRN page header and the volunteer page. If you've not done much dispute resolution in the past, you might want to start at 3O to get your feet under you before trying DRN where things are more complicated. A third opportunity, and one which your question implies might be more of what you're looking for, can be to scan over the list of current RFC's at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All and weigh in on one or more. Regards and thanks for wanting to help, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, but I guess I really AM missing some-thing. I went to 3) and all I found was a discussion in general terms and a way to add a new dispute. I couldn't see any current disputes even in the section with that sort of title. Does that mean that there are no current disputes (I doubt that`), or, more likely, I'm missing the link or section that takes me to these discussions?Kdammers (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kdammers: Just reload the page; Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All consists almost entirely of a list of ongoing RfCs.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Editor modifying closed discussion

The following discussion 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.

---

Not really the place to be having this type of discussion. Closing the thread before it continues on out of hand. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

On this talk page on the second closed discussion - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Billion_vs_1.2C000_million - an editor is making a comment in a clearly closed discussion. I have had to revert it three times, and clearly stated modifying a closed discussion is not allowed. But the editor keeps insisting they are responding to the question. Having replied that I understood and for them to reply elsewhere, or on the person's talk page they wish to respond to, they instead refuse, revert and give a personal attack to me which you will see in the edit history of page. Then on my talk page say I am not being helpful, which is untrue, as I am simply following what it states and deleting the new comment in a closed thread, which is not allowed to be modified. They then posed an 'edit warring' on my page. As it states on it, if you believe you are right I can request for help here, which I am doing so. Charlr6 (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC) See WP:COMMONSENSE: "Wikipedia has many policies or what many consider "rules". Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule." See FORUMSHOPPING too, for opening two threads on the same topic in different forums. –SchroCat (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Using rules to hide behind, and then breaking others when convenient for you is not a good thing to do. 3RR edit warring states to go onto "appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution". I did both, as you seem like somebody highly difficult to deal with. Charlr6 (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Thank you for the ad hominem comment, which isn't needed (See WP:NPA). You shouldn't be removing my comments from talk pages, especially when it's obviously unneeded. If you delete someone's comments on a talk thread and they revert you, don't edit war to put it back in. If you want to discuss it elsewhere, don't open more than one thread – that's FORUMSHOPPING to try and get the answer you want, rather than an effort to bring the situation to a conclusion. – SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC) see other page. And bringing it in places IS an effort to bring situation to a conclusion. Charlr6 (talk) 12:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC) As,I've had to say elsewhere, trying to have a piecemeal conversation with you on the same topic over three threads is as pointless and time wasting as trying to show you the COMMONSENSE idea. I'm off as I really don't want to waste any more time on this or you any further, but if you remove my talk page comments again. I'll revert and drop you into ANI. – SchroCat (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC) seems as hard with you. And I know I am not first editor to have a problem over the years. Charlr6 (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC) This isn't WT:Dispute escalation? >;-) 24.23.163.55 (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2015 (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.

History of India - Lead

See notice at top of page; this is not the place to post notices of disputes, questions about particular articles, or requests for assistance. Instead, choose one of the options listed on the main page here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible to get neutral editors to conclude the lead paragraph of History of India. It is being monopolized by an editor and his friends. They neither want to compromise or bring in a neutral editor. Kindly check the talk page [11] for more details. Please help. (24.157.56.12 (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC))

DR on conduct disputes - where is discussion prior to escalation?

The last time I carefully read this whole thing was back in 2013 when it looked like this. I just re-read it today and I was surprised that in the conduct dispute section, this policy no longer advises that users try to work things out with each other before escalating. In my view this is a big hole - the whole spirit of this place is that we try to work things out individually before going to the relevant board - in some cases admins/board won't deal with something if you have not tried that. This is also not stated here. It also isn't stated that complainants' behavior is examined along with the target of complaint. It should do. So...

The second paragraph of the Resolving user conduct disputes currently reads:

If the problem is with the editor's conduct, not their position on some matter of article content, then you may ask an administrator to evaluate the conduct of the user. You can ask for an administrator's attention at a noticeboard such as the administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Conduct complaints that fall into certain sub-categories of misconduct have their own administrators' noticeboard; for example, complaints about edit warring must be made at the edit warring noticeboard and not to ANI. Administrators have wide latitude to use their permissions to stop misconduct and damage to the encyclopedia; for example, an editor who is making personal attacks, and does not stop when you ask them, may be warned by an administrator and subsequently blocked.

I propose to change that as follows:

If the problem is with the editor's conduct, not their position on some matter of article content, then the first step is to discuss the issue with that editor, politely, simply, yet directly, on his or her Talk page. Try to avoid discussing conduct issues on article Talk pages. There are several templates you may use to warn editors of conduct issues, or you may choose to use your own words to open a discussion. If discussion with the editor fails to resolve the issue, you may ask an administrator to evaluate the conduct of the user. You can ask for an administrator's attention at a noticeboard such as the administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Conduct complaints that fall into certain sub-categories of misconduct have their own administrators' noticeboard; for example, complaints about edit warring must be made at the edit warring noticeboard and not to ANI. Administrators and the community will look to see if you have tried to resolve the conflict before escalating, and they will look at your behavior as well as the behavior of the other editor or editors. Administrators have wide latitude to use their permissions to stop misconduct and damage to the encyclopedia; for example, an editor who is making personal attacks, and does not stop when you ask them, may be warned by an administrator and subsequently blocked.

References

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Support as proposed. I always favor discussion first on any dispute, content or conduct. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Support as proposed, though I would prefer to see the Essays put into a ref-tag mainly because they are not essential to the discussion but segue it - as it currently stands - as well as possibly wikilinking the AN boards, though they may have been done in an earlier spot in the page so it's not a major issue. Disclaimer: These are my own opinions and shouldn't be taken too harshly, it is only meant as feedback to improve, but regardless of that ... Good proposal and wording! Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 03:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

thanks - moved the parenthetical remark into a note. wikilinks created. Jytdog (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I have let this sit a good long while, and am implementing now. Jytdog (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

About if SLOC including comment lines

See notice at top of page; this is not the place to post notices of disputes, questions about particular articles, or requests for assistance. Instead, choose one of the options listed on the main page here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

about if SLOC including comment lines 。 It 'is a disputed, I think it coexistence no edit-war. please talk with me ! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLOC because ,wiki before 2015-07-21 ,wiki "But the most common definition of physical SLOC is a count of lines in the text of the program's source code including comment lines." . please see http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.413.4352&rep=rep1&type=pdf see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Source_lines_of_code&oldid=672185307 see http://www.projectcodemeter.com/cost_estimation/help/GL_sloc.htm see Emacs SLOC, is including comment lines! see https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOC they count lines, too including comment lines. please write two points double appear on web. my english is poor. no edit war, no the dictatorship； to Coexistence！ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yzyzyz1979 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Irredentism of Hungarian editors

See notice at top of page; this is not the place to post notices of disputes, questions about particular articles, or requests for assistance. Instead, choose one of the options listed on the main page here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

There are obvious actions of some nationalists from Hungary against the pages of some countries around Hungary. Nationalist editors like Borsoka, Fakirbakir and Norden attacked several times the history pages of other countries. They act like a gang and impose only references they accept. Being a gang it is difficult to act against them. Their tactics: 1. Erasing texts and references of dead authors (until 1990) in the pages of surrounding countries. But they do not respect the same rule in the pages about Hungarian history; 2. Erasing the texts and references of authors that have an original theory (singular authors). But they do not respect the same rule in the pages about Hungarian history; 3. Erasing texts and references of authors that contradict Hungarians authors. They erase any text creating the impression of majority. 4. Erasing texts and references because there were 3-4 references and one was too old. 5. Erasing texts and references because editors Borsoka, Fakirbakir and Norden do not like a phrase or the content. This kind of actions show that a gang of editors may disturb and construct false data about the history of countries surrounding Hungary. It looks like a politics of Hungarians revisionists. Administrators say they do not want to interfere. False data and biased data made Wikipedia an unreliable source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.166.134.68 (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Fact and opinions a thin line!

See notice at top of page; this is not the place to post notices of disputes, questions about particular articles, or requests for assistance. Instead, choose one of the options listed on the main page here, or in your particular case I'd suggest asking at the Wikipedia Teahouse. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
What's the difference between fact and opinion? Just I noticed sometimes reading some Wikipedia pages that this is happening and its frustrating me. Pennylaneisinmyeyes (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing

For the time being, in the "Caution" section there should be a reference to the WP:Canvassing rule which apparently prevents a person from seeking help from other editors when they are accused. Because this rule is so inherently unjust and illogical, it's important that editors are warned to seek help in the prescriptive manner it outlines. Travelmite (talk) 06:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

For: verifiable content; external links in disambiguous page; resolving content disputes.

Collapse off-topic post. This page is for discussion of improvements to this policy, only. Hard to say where you should be, so let me recommend the Wikipedia Teahouse, the first stop for new editors. — TransporterMan (TALK) 02:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

1. I must note before, that i never will argee with the real (from my point of view) purposes the wikipedia try to reach, but since some wikipedia content is wide used right now, i want to note, that your rule "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" has a grave restriction "if the content can be phisically verified". For example, you can not verify "age of dinosaur", overwise you do not place the fake age on your one page as "trusted source". There are many types of the knowlege like this and "reliable source" for them in fact is "logical expresion" placed immediately into description in the wiki article. 2. In disambiguous page you can not add external reference you require to set as reliable source, there is no wiki page for some terms and what to do? 3. Your idea to "free edit" posts of other people does not follow rules of human relations. But you can reduce damage of the rule if: - the first step, try to post message to author to note about problems and to offer the author to make a changes; - the seecond step, if the author is not online, for 24 hours for exmple, you _must_ comment your edit decision in duscussion/talk page or special page intended to editor wars discussions. At least it will be funny to read most "editor" notes about it's edit decisions. Otherwise you always will get probems with people who edits all around without rationale, having no experience in subject domain. I repeat, even the new polite behaviour of participants will not remove wikipedia problems, but it can reduce damage of current rules. Smethod (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Mr Hall of England

I am not sure if this is the right place or not, but I really don't understand why he has been blocked, I am a bit concerned that the admin User:DrKay has crossed the line of what it means to be an admin on wiki. Mr Hall is a good editor and very helpful to wikipedia I really don't understand why he is under a ban. Can some admins please review the situation and help Mr Hall, thanks. Govvy (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@Govvy: I think WP:ANI sees more traffic, and can still look at admin behaviour (before, say, moving to Arbcom). _Muffled ^Pocketed 19:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

We're a very long way from an Arbcom case, even if this one block was bad, which I am personally not convinced of. In any event, there are several admins watching the discussion on the talk page and providing their input. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that Beeblebrox; I was talking in generalities. And yes, I'm aware of the user's talk page discussion, and your 'input' there. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 06:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)