Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution/Archive 1

message: I've discussed this with a few people on IRC, but it's time this concept saw the light of day. Talking with other parties, polling and mediation are not appropriate responses to rule-breaking. The only appropriate response to breaking the rules is to consider punishment. There is no conflict to mediate, rule-breakers are instead violating the trust of the entire community. Our response to rule-breaking should be analogous to the response to law-breaking in the real world. 
BTW to maintain consistency with the rest of the article, I've used the term "conflict" rather than "dispute". -- Tim Starling 07:11, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
:Actually, the article wasn't internally consistent anyway. I agree with mav that dispute is a preferable term, so I've tried to remove all references to conflict. I think the page name Wikipedia:Conflicts between users contributes a great deal to the confusion, and needs to be changed. --Michael Snow 19:56, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Rule violation is not a dispute/conflict

message: Is there any particular procedure for getting help if one is not sure what one should be doing? Aranel ("Sarah") 18:18, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting help? 

message: There is an apparent problem that resists normal Wikipedia-based means of resolution.  A user who will remain nameless under the pseudonym X (and arbitrarily characterized as male) has been asserting a systematic POV across multiple articles.  More importantly, the nature of his edits is apparently destructive.  None of X's edits seem to add anything to the aforementioned articles, but rather seem to be solely aimed at introducing his POV.  If anything, the nature of the X's edits tends to introduce structural weaknesses into the articles.  X's edits are typically reverted and opposed by the majority of the community, and he has been engaged in multiple edit wars.  There appears to be significant potential for (more) heated conflict with other Wikipedians.  The articles' talk pages, which include at least one incident of content bargaining, and edit summaries further suggest that (1) X is systematically inserting his aforementioned POV and (2) X is resisting compromise and reasonable discussion.  All indications suggest that this will continue to occur for a long while if unresolved.  How should one go about correcting this, if at all?  Informal methods of resolution appear to be unsuccessful.  Mediation appears to be for more specific redress.  Arbitration appears to be only a last resort.  Suggestions would be appreciated.MIT Trekkie 20:16, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to Resolve This? 

message: Could somebody please the Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Iasson and its talk page (ignoring the section about Rhobite, which is irrelevant). There are several of us who feel the RfC has stalled, and wont progress further. We are unsure about what to do next. I understand mediation has a large backlog, and anyway we aren't certain that it would work in the case of the 1 to many dispute we are involved in. Equally I am unsure that the arbitration committee would hear this case, and I feel a rejected request would be taken as a liscence to create havoc. I would appreciate someone who is familiar with dispute resolution to give advice as to the next step(s) on the talk page. Thanks. Thryduulf 11:37, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next step? 

message: A possible new fast dispute-solving tool is being discussed at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Feedback is appreciated. — Itai (f&t) 08:37, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Having heard no objection, I've linked it from the project page. Maurreen 02:50, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Third opinion]] 

message: I have just received a very nasty message from a David Brooks.  He told me that that I did not have any coutesy and that I was dumping my articles.  I will not repeat the content of the message, but anyone can read it on my page.
I am very upset because the people in this group for the most part have nothing but criticism for other people.  They are not helpful or supportive or anything like that.  For the most part all they do is bitch.
I was under a very tight schedule of email usage, so I thought that it would be best to put the articles up and then go back and wikify them later.  I thought that you were looking for volunteers to help out, and I have helped to edit articles on many occasions.
I have never posted one nasty message to anyone, but I have receive numerous offensive messages.  Some of them I have deleted, but others I have not.
I don't know who this David Brooks is, but I read that he is some journalist, like I am supposed to be really impressed.
My point is that if you don't want help then just say so.  I don't think it is appropriate to say that it is a volunteer site and request donations and then send inflammatory emails to people who sincerely want to help.  This is a volunteer website where volunteers work.  Some volunteers work harder than others, but at the end of the day we are all volunteers, so it does no good to send nasty emails.
I am seriously considering whether I want to be a part of this group becuase of the scale of nastiness I have seen, but if I do decide to bow out, I am not expecting anyone in this group to show the slightest bit of concern or to curtail the inflammatory emails they send one bit.
David made some accusations against me that were not very nice, like putting names in quotes, I did the best I could and thought I was doing the right thing, and I think he was totally out of order to send me that nasty message.  He may be a good journalist, but he has a lot to learn about courtesy, which is what he said I had none of.
Regards,
--TracyRenee 17:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Without getting into any specifics, I agree that Wikipedia has too much hostility, etc. Maurreen 17:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nasty messages 

message: Admin -- Uncle Ed (talk) has executed a ridiculously high number of page moves, and has been generally disruptive, at the page currently titled Qur'an desecration by US military.
He has obvious political motivations for the pattern of disruption and title confusion he has sown on this page in recent days. (Check out the titles of his edit summaries on this page if you doubt my assessment of this.) Please. please review the history of this page and consider taking appropriate action. BrandonYusufToropov 02:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ed Poor persistently disruptive on Qur'an abuse page -- surrealistically high number of page moves 

message: :Mr Andy- Alias Pigsonthewings; It is evident you've had more problems in the past than I'll ever have and you know it. You really want to be sneaky and staulk on wikipedia rather than contribute. People have tried to talk to you in the past and you seem to want to show a power thing or something. Not sure what your real problem is with good editors. If you wish, I will post the evidence here now as I made a good effort to comprimise with you as others have
: 
1)Your user page
2)Scroll to bottom
3)POTW user page-this one is a real shame
4)POTW
5)==Mig/POTW==
6)You also removed several other items. Frankly, given your recent behaviour, and the above ludicrous and fallacious allegation, I'm not really interested in hearing your personal opinions, nor your threats. Andy Mabbett 11:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POTW

message: Cease and desist making personal atatcks. Andy Mabbett 21:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Andy, Go on, people have attempted to talk with you before and you just continued to give them a hard time. (Innocent and good editors). Think about it, please for your own good. Thanks Scott 21:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POTW problems in the past