Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution/Archive 2

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

Arbitration clause
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)


 * Current mediation relies to a great deal on ex-post-facto principles, which would not be binding on a prior agreement. Procedures must be "well-established and regularly enforced" in order to be upheld as a bar to future litigation. (A federal court precedent which might be a useful standard here.) Benjamin Gatti 05:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The idea is good, just try to make it shorter. Maybe have the longer explanation in another page and simply add to say: "By editing here, you agree to license your contributions under the GFDL and to binding arbitration of any disputes.". - Taxman Talk 18:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Propose to add exclusion clause to the Principle of Prior Efforts
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:
 * 1) Benjamin Gatti 05:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin Gatti 05:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Having fun Ben? I would think it would be obvious to you that the above is just wasting everyone's time. Your behavior was obvious enough to warrant a case, that's all that's needed. Furthermore, instead of polls that help nothing, we have an encyclopedia to create. - Taxman Talk 18:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Cbaus's AMA request
I replied to your offer for guidance in my own discussion page - wasn't sure if you'd check it so wanted to let you know. --- Cbaus 05:23, 27 December 2005 (EDST-USA)

I need help with a problem
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)

I will except a limited ban if you want. Indefinate ban reeks of abuse of power.--Greyfox 21:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't make threats against users who have left, and watch your tone. No-one has a right to edit Wikipedia, and there was a request for comment against Nick which was filed some time ago. There was no clear conclusion arising from this, and despite attempts to reconcile the issue, that remains the case.

Throughout this issue, Nick has been polite and open to discussion, and your little group has done nothing but push POV, make personal remarks, and be incivil and abusive. Don't push any more buttons - of any user - or you may find yourselves banned out of sheer disgust. Rob Church (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

please help us this is going to far--Greyfox 02:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

how do I file a complaint before I am banned.--Greyfox 02:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

User: --Urthogie committed 3RR
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)

Advocate Cabal
Hello all: I've recently started a new initiative, 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)

Thurrock Paranormal
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)

I have never experienced such a disgusting amount of abuse and down right newbie bashing for writing an article!

I will never use this site again and I will never post on here again!

Not a lot upsets me and it takes a lot to wind me up but this has.... I have never been so disgusted and p****d off in all my life!!! Pchurch 20:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible mediation case?
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)

A dispute I hope to learn from
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 helpmes 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)

An error 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)

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to New York Mets. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. - Dakota ~ 07:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop vandalizing Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Pilot|guy 23:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

um i was wondering if it was okay to post this picture /Users/pernilleottosen/Desktop/ Cool Dragon.jpg on the topic dragon, please let me know soon!

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. If you're concerned with privacy, registering also hides your IP address. [RIR WHOIS lookup: America Europe Africa Asia-Pacific Latin America/Caribbean


 * 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)

Possible dispute between McPhail and two members
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! -- S iva1979 Talk to me  03:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

threat of vandalisim
please see the british isles input, i sudgest this be locked for editing, it has been brought up on the popular message board site boards.ie and i expect that many cases of vandalisim will occur - User:Blu sonic

redirect button
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)

Further dispute resolution
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)

Imam Ali AS
Can you please read these paragraphs that I wrote about the Siffin confrontation and the Jamal Confrontations which were faced by Ali ibn Abu Talib when he was becoming a caliph? I am trying to add these two section in the article of Ali ibn Abu Talib but this user named Zora just keeps on deleting it and she keeps on saying that it has been written from a Shi’a POV, and I am sure that when I was writing these two section I was trying my best to be as neutral as possible. So I don’t know what to do she doesn’t stop. So can you please read and then tell me if you think that these two sections have been written from a Shi’a POV. Thank You


 * Jamal Confrontation

When Ali ibn Abu Talib became Caliph, he decided to remove Muawiyah I immediately, notwithstanding Muawiyah I's strong base of support. At that time, Muawiyah I had been the governor of Syria, Palestine, and Jordan for 17 years. Muawiyah I became defiant, he refused to obey Ali's orders. Brazen and unabashed, he even declined to recognize Ali or give allegiance of loyalty to him. Also in defiance, Muawiyah I established a parallel government in Greater Syria, and started a campaign of treacherous accusations and malicious rumors against Ali ibn Abu Talib. He falsely blamed Ali ibn Abu Talib for the killing of Uthman ibn Affan, the third Caliph, and urged people to take up arms against the Imam. He spread these notorious accusations constantly to incite an uprising against Ali.

At the same time Aisha, Muhammad ibn `Abdu’llah ibn `Abdu’l-Muttalib's widow, became highly vocal against Ali ibn Abu Talib. She called for taking revenge for the blood of Uthman. As a result, a party of 3,000 insurgents supported by Sahaba such as Talha and Zubair, along with Aisha headed toward Basra. The insurgents upon reaching Basra clashed with the local authorities and finally occupied a portion of Basra. Soon after the occupation these insurgents spread a reign of terror among the people, killing no less than 600 local Muslims, pilfering the treasury and stealing the arms supplies of the armory.

As a Caliph in charge, Ali ibn Abu Talib could not ignore the situation, he had to act and restore peace and order. He ordered his forces to proceed to Basra. As the Ali ibn Abu Talib's forces reached near Basra, Ali ibn Abu Talib tried to persuade the insurgents led by Aisha, Zubair and Talha to change their minds and avoid confrontation, but he did not succeed. A battle broke out though Zubair elected not to fight. Talha was wounded then bled to death. Thousands of people lost their lives. Aisha fell down from the camel after it was disabled, but luckily she was not hurt. Ali ibn Abu Talib asked Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr, (Aisha's brother), to take Aisha to Basra for a few days, and from there to escort her to Medina with full honor and dignity. Upon leaving Basra Hassan ibn Ali (2nd Shi'a Imam) and Hussain ibn Ali (3rd Shi'a Imam) accompanied Muhammad's widow for some distance before bidding her farewell. Ali ibn Abu Talib stayed in Basra for a few weeks to restore law and order. He compensated for the dead, and decided to forgive and absolve all who fought against him, exactly as Muhammad ibn `Abdu’llah ibn `Abdu’l-Muttalib had done when he triumphed over Mecca 40 years earlier.


 * Siffin Confrontation

Upon returning to Kufa, Ali ibn Abu Talib immediately prepared for the anticipated clash with Muawiyah I. The defying Muawiyah I continued to violate the Islamic principles by personally using the public treasury for espionage and buying peoples' loyalty. The people of Syria fully believed him and the in false picture he presented. Ultimately this resulted in a confrontation called Battle of Siffin when the troops of the two sides met at Siffin. The battle saw ferocious fighting for nine days when Muawiyah I's forces were near collapse. His troops were fleeing and in disarray, and their retreat was in massive disorder. Muawiyah I, alarmed, tense, and frightened, preparing to run away, when he learned of a clever trick. The trick was indecent and unbecoming, it was to make the Holy Quran as an instrument and exploit it, to use it as a tool to his advantage. Muawiyah I seized on this immediately and commanded his fighters to raise 500 Holy Qurans on tips of spears, in order to stun the troops of Ali ibn Abu Talib. As jolting as it was, this maneuver did break the onslaught and the momentum of Ali's fighters, for they were very pious men. But Ali ibn Abu Talib was quick to recognize this deceit, he knew how deceptive Muawiyah I was, and now that being near collapse, Muawiyah I wanted to save his neck at the expense of the Quran itself.

With that in mind, Ali ibn Abu Talib urged his generals not to halt, but to keep fighting since victory was almost at hand. Alas, Ali's generals and fighters were in shock, for the sight of the Holy Quran high on spear heads was startling to say the least. They could not take it. Not willing to fight, they wanted to accept Muawiyah I's offer to halt the fighting and negotiate instead. The termination of the battle in this manner and the consequences thereof proved to be disastrous to say the least, especially for Ahl al-Bayt and Islam.

It is said that there was a conspiracy between Amr ibn Aas of Muawiyah I's side, and Ash'ath ibn Qais, a General in Ali ibn Abu Talib's camp, who was working as a spy against Ali, secretly working as an agent for Muawiyah I. In this battle 45,000 men lost their lives in Muawiyah I's camp, and about 25,000 in Ali's camp. Many men of high caliber from both sides died, especially Ammar Ibn Yasir, the great Companion of the Muhammad who was 90 years old and fought on Ali ibn Abu Talib's side against Muawiyah I.


 * After the Battle of Siffin

Ali ibn Abu Talib’s generals, who stopped the battle to negotiate with Muawiyah I, did not pick the right person for the negotiation. They unyieldingly refused to accept Ali ibn Abu Talib’s choice and instead they picked Kufa's Governor, Abu-Musa Ash'ari (an incompetent Governor who had been previously dismissed from office by Ali ibn Abu Talib). Muawiyah I appointed Amr ibn Aas, a shrewd and cunning man, to be his representative in the negotiation. Negotiation between the two sides did not take place for about one year.

When the two negotiators came face to face, it was clear that Ash'ari's capability was no match for his opponent ibn Aas. In the negotiations, Ash'ari proposed that, both Muawiyah I and Ali ibn Abu Talib were to abdicate and to let the people hold election for the caliphate. Amr ibn Aas, a deceptive man at best, quickly agreed to Ash'ari's proposal and asked Ash'ari to first announce the agreement. Ash'ari stood up and announced, "O people, we have agreed not to consider Ali or Muawiyah I for caliphate. You may choose or elect whomever you think is fit." The cunning Amr ibn Aas stood up next to say, "O people! I won't consider Ali for the caliphate. But Muawiyah I, in my opinion, is the person for that office!" Upon hearing this (and feeling deceived), the people screamed disapprovingly, an uproar was the result. Ali ibn Abu Talib’s camp was in shock, they were double-crossed, deceived and lied to, and they felt deeply cut. Amr's double crossing and deception was simply beyond their imagination. They left the place bewildered and utterly disappointed. Because of this a large group of Ali ibn Abu Talib’s supporters defected to form a separate group called Kharijites, meaning the Outsiders.

Are there standards for which English is used in Wikipedia?
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. --Cel es tianpower háblame 13:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistent Wikipedia policies
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)

Pak21 keeps removing my links
I've been told by Pak21 that my links to www.system17.com are invalid because it is a site that covers several subjects (that appear on Wiki) as opposed to specializing on one, yet there are links all over the place that violate this as well.

Here are some examples:

For Man O War the game, Sea of Claws is linked but Pak21 has removed System17, despite that System17 contains more information on Man O War than Sea of Claws does. The Sea of Claws is not an offical Games Workshop site, but is supported by fans as System 17 is.

For Epic the game, he has removed the link to System17 when another site, NetEpic, isn't even a Games Workshop epic game, but made up by a fan!

And to confuse me further, a link to www.MAHQ.net on the Gundam page stands when www.MAHQ.net is a general site for mecha in animation, and doesn't even pretend to be a specific Gundam site.

Check out the Battle of Stanlingrad. You will see linked sites that include sites that talk about a variety of battles, not just the one at Stalingrad.

So I hate to sound angry, but I feel like I am being picked on by Pak21, as either he is being contradictory or the Wiki rules he is following are.

I truly feel system17 does contain additional information for readers that is not provided on Wiki, and I don't think I should have to copy and paste my content when other webmasters have their sites linked.

Is there a process for getting someone to stop personal attacks?
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)

Proposed addition to the page - STOP step
I propose that a section be added to the page, before Arbitration, suggesting people simply stop participating in the dispute for a month or so, and see if that resolves it. While this is mentioned on the page (with the link to Truce) I think it should be greatly hightened in visibility. Nothing on Wikipedia (that hasn't gotten resolved after following the above steps) is so urgent that a month is impossible. Anyone who thinks otherwise is already too involved to handle editing here.

My rough draft of a statement of this is below (Yes, I know it's verbose, and less diplomatic that it probably should be):
 * If you have a dispute, and discussion has ground to a standstill, and attempts to gain new participants have failed, the next step in the dispute resolution process is to stop. Put a note on your user page mentioning the article you have a dispute about, and a short explanation of the dispute (so you, and anyone who happens across your user page will be aware) and go away and work on something else on Wikipedia.  Stay away from that dispute for at least a month or so.  Take the article off your watchlist.  Respond to questions about it on your user talk page with a polite pointer to this section of this page, and a request that the questioner take it to the article talk page.  Most importantly - don't try to make sure your side of the dispute is represented on the article page.  IT DOESN"T MATTER.  If you think it does, you are wrong for Wikipedia, and it is best for both the project and you for you to no longer edit.
 * After a month or so, it is quite possible that the dispute will already have been resolved, or your antagonist will have gone on to other projects, or more people will have become involved in the article. All of these things can help.

If there is no comment on this in a week, I will add verbiage on this to the page, assuming that indicates a lack of objections. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Per the lack of comment, I've added it to the page - maybe that'll scare up some objections, etc... JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I have tempered it down a little bit and maybe fleshed it out. I think the process of the User page with commenters coming to it may not be fruitful and possibly should be taken out, at least so explicitly. —Centrx→talk &bull; 07:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I like your changes - I knew it was a bit less tempered that it ought to be. As for the mention of adding disputes to your user page - I mainly added it to provide people  with something active to do; it would probably be better mentioned in the Truce page (which really ought to be linked from this step, too). Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a good idea, but I think it needs to be simpler and more to the point. I suggest something along the lines of:


 * ==Stop==
 * A simple solution to a dispute is to stop having it &mdash; by leaving the article. Absorbe yourself in another article where you can make constructive progress. In the meantime the first article will evolve, other editors may also take on the relevant issues, and the editor you were in dispute with may themselves move on. In due course you will probably be able to return and carry on editing it, when the previous problems no longer exist. Take a long term view. Wiki is going to be here for 1,000 years, so a few weeks won't harm it!

Tyrenius 03:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That looks fine to me, also. Feel free to replace what's on the page with that, if no-one else objects. JesseW, the juggling janitor 16:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I came here to make that exact suggestion, but as a Second step to the process; not on the bottom. Also new users should be mentioned in particular, as they typically are less familiar with Wikiculture and that can cause friction. - RoyBoy 800 14:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution does nothing
Over the time I've been here at Wikipedia, I've never seen dispute resolution work right. At best, it takes over a month to get someone to deal with an out of control article, and even then only after revert wars and hundreds of personal attacks are made. At worst, the admins simply refuse to do anything.

Case in point: every article related to Ayn Rand is a chaotic mess of pro-Rand bias. Rand's anti-academic followers are allowed to alter the articles based on their POV even if sources proving otherwise are present. If any sources are there, they are allowed to move them to a more obscure article to hide away criticisms. We have tried to use dispute resolution several times, yet every time the admin running it has said they aren't willing to do the work to fix the problem, whether their excuse is "it's too hostile" or "I'm too lazy".

The de facto result is that none of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines apply to these articles. Sure, on paper they do, but without any enforcement they simply do not exist. The de facto policy for editing these articles is that whichever side has the larger rabid following editing the article (in this case, Rand's fans) gets to decide the POV of the article. And this is not even the first case; I've tried using dispute resolution over and over again, and the results are always the same: nothing. -- LGagnon 16:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. All you really need to enforce a bias in Wikipedia is a friend to act as a co-conspirator to create a quorum of two and accuse the other in a bunch of 3RR violations.--8bitJake 22:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Fully agree. When you have an administrator like User:HOTR so blatantly rude and politically biased that he simply goes around deleting other editor's work willy nilly, despite complaints being made, you realise that Wikipedia has no proper controls at all. 195.194.75.209 10:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

But - what would you have us do instead? Undoubtably the process fails sometimes (heck, even many times) - but no-one (that I've come across) has suggested a better one. One point to keep in mind is - it has to work with volunteers only - we don't have the money to hire anyone. Also, it needs to allow for reversals of mistakes - even long-standing ones. Further, it needs to be applicable to the entire, gigantic breadth of Wikipedia - something that only worked for Railroad articles wouldn't be sufficient (although it would certainly be helpful) If you would like to  propose something that satisfies these criteria, I (at least) would be glad to hear it! JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Remember - admins are not empowered to judge content disputes (although, like any editor, they can participate in them). If you expect this - give up now. If you want to propose that they do - what method do you propose we use to make sure biased editing people don't become admins? If we had such a method, we'd use it to stop biased people from editing at all... We don't. And, more importantly, we can't have such a thing - a perfect good guys/bad guys filter is not available in this universe, sorry. But, if you have improvements (even radical ones) you'd like to propose, please do! JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We have two systems at Wikipedia that work much better than dispute resolution: Administrator intervention against vandalism and Personal attack intervention noticeboard. You write down an alert about a problem, an admin notices it, and someone gets involved. If we had some method similar to this, in which we were able to simply notify all admins that a major dispute is ongoing, then we'd have something better.
 * I'd also like to note that many of our "disputes" are merely trumped-up versions of vandalism and/or personal attacks. There's an easy work around to making vandalism not count as vandalism on Wikipedia: vandalize the article, then blab absolutely any argument (no matter how weak) on the talk page, and repeat that same argument over and over again whenever you re-vandalize the article. Admins will notice you talked on the talk page, and thus upgrade you from "vandal" to "participating editor". With such an easy form of social engineering available to vandals, we need something as accessible as Administrator intervention against vandalism to deal with the problem. -- LGagnon 23:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Suggestions? Bearing in mind that judging the validity of arguments on arbitrary subjects is hard (esspecially for busy people not already familiar with the subject).  In any case, RfC is intended to be exactly what you asked for.  It doesn't work as well as it might because we have more disputes than people who wish to become involved in them, but that is the idea of it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been alternately bullied and threatened by other users/admins (I can't tell which). There is no contact to report bad behaviour. One of my first comments was surreptitiosly deleted. There is no accountability. An admin(??? not quite sure) did nothing and instead condemned my offensive acronym, when looking in her history, she uses an actual profane word in describing presumably another user. There is no accountability or enforcement of admin abuse, or abuse by established users. My first experience has been negative because of these people and I have yet found no contact to report them and their threats.-A101
 * Tried WP:AN/I yet? However, looking over your contributions, you accused people of WP:Vandalism when it was in actuality a content dispute. Those are different. . No abuse beyond simple incivility on all sides has taken place. --tjstrf 07:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about October 19, in the discussion part. I posted a reasonable comment, nothing more (no abuse, for example..!). Then it was mysteriously gone. Deleted by another user (Beneaththelandslide), who called my comment that they deleted, "vandalism". It was not vandalism. That is the beginning of a series of escalations, because the next user/admin (Rebecca) condemned my anger, at being deleted for a false reason, and didn't say a word about what had provoked it. Instead they threatened I would be blocked AND they had the audacity to tell me not to break the rules, when they themselves broken them (as one could easily see in their own history). Yes, I got angry about it (at least I admit my errors). So would anyone trying to contribute to this site. However you are wrong about me accusing other people of vandalism...instead, they accused me. Again, it is silly it got out of hand, but at the same time, for irregular users, wikipedia has to realise this behaviour goes on. I may never have come back and realised that my comment had been deleted. There are users and admins who cklearly have little sense of integrity and honesty (imo) and even less respect for other users. Anyway, I'm done with it and won't report their behaviour (since it is rather difficult and not worth my time). You can delete this discussion if you want to.-A101

Salman
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 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.
 * —Centrx→talk &bull; 05:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Revision of Requests for comment page
I have prepared a major reorganization and substantial revision of 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 &bull; 19:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thích Nhất Hạnh's Peace Treaty
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)

Homogeneous truths?
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 Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and Voting is evil. —Centrx→talk &bull; 00:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

Informal Mediation
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)


 * See the template at the right of Resolving disputes. That is the general order to follow. You might also bring it up on the relevant WikiProject or if it is a severe case, of abuse, on Administrator's noticeboard. —Centrx→talk &bull; 21:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Shortcut:WP:Avoid - software bug
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 Shortcut 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)


 * Considering "avoidance" is the very first section, I hope this is not such a big problem?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That is a serendipitous convenience. :)  Milo 16:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)