Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution/Archive 2

message: I am stating my intent to fork this article - turning this into an overview article, while making Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (now a redirect) an article reserved for explaining the formal dispute resolution process. -St|eve 08:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forking this page 

message: I have proposed at MediaWiki talk:Edittools to add the following to the bottom of that section of the edit page:
:By clicking to save the above edit, you agree to the binding resolution of any disputes that arise as a result of your participation in Wikipedia through the dispute resolution processes available here .
As I stated there, I believe this will head off legal threats of all stripes, as the courts (in the U.S., at least) are keen to enforce arbitration clauses, thereby reducing their caseloads. I'd like to get some wider input from the community before implementing such a change - currently, nothing binds disputants to our internal dispute resolution processes, which I think would be to our benefit. bd2412 T 04:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Arbitration clause]] 

message: Given the recently accepted Arbcom user:Benjamin Gatti and noting that there is no RfC by the same name, nor any attempts at mediation of a personal nature, the consensus of the Arbcom appears to be in favor of lowering the expectation of prior resolution efforts, thus is proposed this additional section to handle such witchhunts more efficeintly:
"In any content dispute between a plurality of editors, where RfC and Mediation have only served to increase the number of people who disagree, it may be helpful to engage in a targetted witchhunt of individual users (for which no RfC or Mediation has been attempted) and by that means reduce the numbers in the opposing camp as a means to secure the  promotion of the popular point of view (regardless of its factual accuracy). Include a myriad of reasonable edits, served with plenty of conclusorary statements - such as - this is all lies and POV - even if it is well sourced. It is helpful to recruit echoes  to reinterate the conclusorary statements as many in fatigue of the merits will surely substitute popularity contests for hard work and reason."
Votes for consensus:
# Benjamin Gatti 05:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose to add exclusion clause to the Principle of Prior Efforts 

message: on jw page there is a dispute it was going well but someone was banned indefinately i thnk it was wrong and I need help please i tried talking to the admin who banned the guy but got this in stead.
Re: Cease and Deceast request from GREYFOX.
I here to ask you to remove the indefinete ban from user tommstein. or I will take this up with whoever I need to to get it undone. Jimbo Whales if necessary. --Greyfox 21:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I need help with a problem  

message: I have created a page, Jewish terrorism, to discuss the history of Jewish terrorism. The user has redirected my page and reverted my changes. I would like to report this incident so that proper action be taken. I was also banned for violating this rule but it did know about this rule and nobody warned me. I had already warned user Urthogie not to violate this rule.
Siddiqui 21:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User: --[[User:Urthogie|Urthogie]]  committed 3RR 

message: Hello all: I've recently started a new initiative, Wikipedia:Advocate Cabal, which aims to provide informal advocate services to assist Wikipedians in solving problems. I would be most grateful for comments, flames, &c., and indeed if people would be so good as to help out that would be brilliant. Anybody who wants an advocate might also like to make the monumental first request. :) Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advocate Cabal 

message: Dear Sirs
I have been subjected to abuse on my the articles for deletion page from users as my article was "elected" for deletion.  I was called "totally pathetic" and "drawn by a 12 year old" as well as more.  A breach of your rules, yet it continues in abundance!
The article was written about our paranormal investigation group called Thurrock Paranormal.  We are a non profit non charging organisation.  I wrote the article (mistakenly) as an advert.  Realising my error I turned the article into the historical alleged paranormal activity which goes on in Essex and Thurrock. The article was slated as being "pure vanity and non non notable gruft!" plus lots more.  
I have seen many new users are ganged up on and their articles are slated, paving the way for someone with more "notability" and "fame" to post an article.  There are many articles which are seriously open for controversy and are similar to mine but that doesn't seem to bother them.  In fact I mentioned another group called Spirit Searchers on their article as a blatant advert and it has been ignored.  I was told to stop posting links to the article and site on relevant pages.  Yet every other articles are the same and that's how everything is linked back to each other.  
I have found my experience of Wikipedia a very unpleasant one!  Full of abuse and members who are quick to ridicule rather than give constructive help or critism.
The link for the article is Thurrock Paranormal and it is on the deletion page.
I would be very interested in hearing your comments regarding this. 
Pchurch 10:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thurrock Paranormal 

message: Would the case described in User:SPUI/Curpsbot be within the scope of the Mediation Committee? --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 03:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible mediation case?

message: Here's what happened:
I added several paragraphs of information to the Internet Explorer article, and my edit was reverted, because it contained POV. I admit that edit was pretty POV, so I have no problem with this. After the revert, several editors and I had a discussion on the talk page, and I conceded that my edit was POV after reading their explanation.
Several weeks later, I cleaned up my paragraphs (which had been deleted) to remove the POV, taking feedback from the editors and trying to address their concerns. The paragraphs were completely rewritten, and I had made attempts to make the new information NPOV before adding the new paragraphs (2nd edit) into the article. I also posted on the talk page that I had rewritten my paragraphs and would appreciate feedback.
However, in a few minutes, my 2nd edit was reverted, without any explanation or feedback, and a note on the talk page referred to me as a "biased critic whose only purpose is to disrupt". (Does this constitute a personal attack, on Wikipedia?) There was no discussion at all about my 2nd edits; no useful feedback or information on my 2nd edits. While I am satisfied with the response to my 1st edits, because the editors provided an explanation of why my edits were NPOV, I did not receive such responses for 2nd edit. Just a quiet revert, no response except a potential personal attack.
Please note that I am relatively new to Wikipedia (joined in Feb 2006) and still lack understanding of certain elements and policies on Wikipedia. My edit history shows lots of s and edits in the wrong places. Although I hope that by posting here, we can reach consensus regarding my edit, and an explanation of why my 2nd edits (remember, a complete rewrite) were inappropriate, my main purpose regarding this dispute is to learn more about Wikipedia from more experienced editors. For example, I am seeking information on how to summary style (what to include and what not to include), how to make POV edits NPOV, and editoralizing. For more information, see my latest response on the talk page, at the very bottom of the section.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Internet_Explorer#Addition_to_Internet_Explorer_article_reverted.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A dispute I hope to learn from 

message: I got this message, but ive never editing anything on wiki... i love this site and think its an excellent place for educational purposes i wouldnt do anything to vandalize it i need help with it plz what can i do?... here is the messaage......
This IP address, 64.12.116.202, is registered to America Online (AOL) and is shared by multiple users. Comments left on this page may be received by other users of this IP and appear to be irrelevant. Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking.
If you are an unregistered user operating from this address, note that this is not the IP address of your machine. 64.12.116.202 is the IP address of a proxy server that communicates between your browser and the Wikimedia servers. These and other proxies are shared among thousands of AOL users. If you are frustrated by irrelevant comments appearing here, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself.
Please note: AOL users often change IP addresses with each page they load.
Warnings or messages left on this page will probably not be received by the intended user.[edit]
Warnings
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to New York Mets, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. Tangotango 07:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the solution for you would be to create your own Wiki-name. It's easy. Just press on "Log in / create account" on the right upper corner and proceed. Cheers! --Tom David 07:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An error message

message: McPhail and Hitmanwdb seem to be having a problem.  Now Hitmanwdb is saying that McPhail is reverting back edits that he doesn't like and says that McPhail considers people vandals who he doesn't agree with.  Hitmanwdb posts on McPhail's first subpage.
Hitmanwdb's first post
Hitmawdb's second post
Another user by the name of 3bulletproof16 has also posted on McPhail's first subpage.  He said to stop reverting back and with Hitmanwdb when he said "it's a public encylopedia and not McPhail's encylopedia."
3bulletproof16's post
Now I went and did some investigating on the Bret Hart page and McPhail has done a lot of editing and reverting.  That doesn't necessarily mean a thing.  But McPhail should be talked to and asked to stop reverting back because he doesn't like what people put in the Bret Hart article when they edit and or expand it.
This situation could get worse if it is not taken care of soon.  I myself haven't had a problem with McPhail and I hope I never will have a problem with him.  But he should not consider people's edit when they are not to his liking as vadalism.
:Please sign your messages. Thank You! --Siva1979Talk to me 03:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible dispute between McPhail and two members

message: I'm trying to use this page to talk to all editors of Wikipedia, especially the head of Wikipedia (administrators of Wikipedia). I'm not sure whether this here is the right place but anyway: I wanted to ask whether it would be a big problem to take away the possibility to make direct redirects. I would suggest to make simple links instaed. The advantage would be that everybody would stop first exactly at that page of that word which he entered in the search mask and would be able then to remark small differences between the word he entered and that one where the closest link would lead him to.
I tell you about this since I've made bad experiences with the possibility of the redirect function. What do you think? What reasons speak for keeping the redirect button?
Curious on your answers,
and cheers! ;)
--Tom David 12:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  redirect button 

message: The section in the article headed "Further dispute resolution" talks of 4 processes but lists 5. Should we change it to 5 and number each. If no response within a few days I'll assume it's OK to make the change. Mccready 17:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further dispute resolution 

message: I recently saw an article using words such as "colour" (and it would then write the American English form in parenthesis after) as well as other Queen's English terms.  I was positive that Wikipedia abides to the American English standards (as having multiple versions of English in an encyclopedia can lead to a less than savory experience, consistancy is important).
I was then sent a message by a user telling me Wikipedia does not abide to any specific version of English.  Is this true?
Thanks.
: Please see . Thanks. --Celestianpower háblame 13:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are there standards for which English is used in Wikipedia? 

message: It just seems a bit suspicious that someone wants to delete an article I wrote on the accusation that the identical or similar content exists in anotehr article but that it will constitute original research it I write about it in an article I have written??? Also I'm not quite sure about this idea of no original research when contributors are required to state that images are their own work??? I mean duh. What's going on here?  ...IMHO (Talk) 23:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent Wikipedia policies 

message: Is there any process for formal complaint against an individual user for purely conduct? 
I am having a problem with user Midgely making personal attacks in my Rfd on G. Patrick Maxwell. I have asked him repeatedly to stop. Other admins have asked him to be civil. Yet he continues to attack me by saying I am POV and citing another article I have been working on. We all have opinions. I am no more POV than he is. As an engineer and a lawyer, I am well accustomed to providing references and citations for any edits here or on formal papers. However, I really should not have to defend myself in this regard. The Rfd has nothing to do with my edits on a different article. Midgely has also accused me of removing his vote/comments and then used that as an excuse to write a long diatribe on me. IN fact, another admin had inadvertantly moved his vote/comment, and explained that to him. Midgely never apologized or stopped his onslaught of vicious personal attack. All because he disagrees with me. This is unbelievable. He also has a section on his talkpage called "Molly Coddling". I doubt that this violates any particular WIki rule, but it is an example of his single-minded attack on me. I also know that he has a history of doing this. In m y case, he has been warned several times to be civil, but no admin does anything to stop this continued attack. Will you or someone please do something? MollyBloom 21:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is there a process for getting someone to stop personal attacks?

message: Is there any policy on wikipedia that states that an editor can’t delete anything from his/her talk page. I want to find that out because I want to delete someone comments because I want to make my talk page as small as possible and for my most undated comments. Thank You
:*Removing recent vandalism warnings and similar posts to your Talk page from administrators and users in good standing is not acceptable.
:*Removing recent comments from other users is impolite and impairs communication about editing articles, etc. This may be viewed as uncivil.
:*If your talk page becomes too long or has old conversations, it is standard practice—but not required policy—to archive them in a subpage within your own user namespace, and place a link to that archive on your talk page. See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. Leave recent vandalism warnings and recent, open conversations on your talk page; do not archive them for a while.
:*Note that if you want to make draft articles, have a separate to-do list, etc., you can make a subpage in your user namespace.
:*See also Help:Talk page#User talk pages.
:—Centrx→talk • 05:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Salman01|Salman]]

message: I have prepared a major reorganization and substantial revision of Wikipedia:Requests for comment at User:Centrx/Sandbox/Request for comment. It had not been substantially changed since RfCs were split out into subpages and has become a unnavigable and repetitive hodgepodge. This revision cleanly divides the page into subsections relevant to specific kinds of RfCs—articles, policy, user, and responses—with specific instructions, advice, and reference to policies for each.
What should be trimmed down further? What is missing? the section on requestion comment on articles is the most well-developed, but what might be appropriate for the user section in integrating it well with its subpage? Should the policy section be expanded? How about the section on responding? Also, I would like help with formatting of the templates on the right near the introduction, problems which may be visible on higher resolution screens. —Centrx→talk • 19:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision of [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment]] page 

message: Although it is not quite on topic, if anyone is interested Thích Nhất Hạnh's Peace Treaty is available here: User:ish ishwar/Peace Treaty. peace – ishwar  (speak) 05:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thích Nhất Hạnh's Peace Treaty

message: I apologize if this is not the correct place to raise this issue.  However, the more that I've consulted Wikipedia, the more pages I've come across that have disputes in various stages.  The idea behind the official dispute headers, locking of editing, and other tactics seems to be that given enough time, thought, arbitration, a single truth will work its way out, or that there is always a single point of view that is more valid.  Furthermore, validity seems to be popularly grounded.  Obviously, democratic evaluation does not measure truth, but something else altogether.  The problem, then, is how to build this potential pluralism into a publishable object.  To my thinking, Wikipedia could in certain instances offer the option of side-by-side articles written from different view points (that is, a single bi-columnar).  This possibly gets around some cases of vandalism and the wars of incessant tit-for-a-tat re-editing of disputed pages.  By offering a point of view that feels itself muted or marginalized the chance to express itself on an equal footing with the popularly accepted view, it may diminish the likelihood that disputes will manifest themselves in such counterproductive methods.  Granted, such promotion of perspective does and cannot solve all of Wikipedia's problems; however, its emphasis on open debate rather than singularity, which is favored by the current Wikipedia model, facilitates a better truth for the reader, one that better acknowledges the complexities of our world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.234.184.148 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 20 July 2006  (UTC)
:For more information about this, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Voting is evil. —Centrx→talk • 00:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A fork of Wikipedia, Wikiinfo, follows basically this idea; you may be interested in that. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homogeneous truths? 

message: I am currently in a massive wholesale edit war (where almost the full contents are edited and reverted between two very different versions) with another editor, especially one who does not want to compromise or try to come to some sort of general middle ground.  Almost every edit I've made has been rejected wholesale, even when it is citable and verifiable.
The question I raise is if there is some way to try and "advertise" the situation to bring the article to the attention of more editor/contributors on Wikipedia in an attempt to find some sort of middle ground or true NPOV rather than simply relinquishing the article to the editor who has the most staying power and ability to revert last and most often.  Or simply to bring about more informal mediation while the dispute is still at the yelling at each other on the talk page and each other's user page stage.  At least the user in this case isn't deleting arguments off of the talk page at the moment, which I have seen in the past too.
In this particular situation, I would like to have at least a 3rd party who can attempt to come in and try to view objectively all of the edits that have occured in the past little while as well as the discussion on the talk page and try to help mediate a closer to NPOV article without making a formal mediation request.  I know from unfortunate experience when I've done this in the past in other circumstances, however, I find it hard not to become a factional party with a particular POV to the dispute.  But at least by advertising that there is a problem it can bring more eyes into the issue and not let one very strong editor be pushy and get their way by default.  --Robert Horning 19:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the template at the right of Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. That is the general order to follow. You might also bring it up on the relevant Wikipedia:WikiProject or if it is a severe case, of abuse, on Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard. —Centrx→talk • 21:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informal Mediation 

message: I've created redirect WP:Avoid, and added a WP shortcut template to the Avoidance section. The reason is that I had repeatedly created temporary such links with an HTTP URL on talk pages, where certain issues would be most wisely avoided. WP:Avoid is more diplomatic than WP:DR for suggested use prior to any dispute. 
A section shortcut worked just fine in Preview of WP:Avoid, but after page save, the anchor "#Avoidance" suffix gets cut off by the run time software. The HTTP URL version mentioned by Wikipedia:Shortcut#How to use Wikipedia shortcuts disappears completely from page visibility. Both versions currently work like WP:DR to go to the top, so it's not too disfunctional to leave in place as is, until a resolution or workaround is implemented. 
This is a known feature request / bug report 218: Redirects do not support named anchors. 
An apparently workable resolution has been demonstrated by User:Omegatron but isn't yet implemented. Last commented on 2006-08-30 at . A known workaround is to create a subsidiary page with "Avoidance" text at WP:Avoid.  Milo 06:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a serendipitous convenience.  :)  Milo 16:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortcut:WP:Avoid - software bug