Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution/Archive 3

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

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


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

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


 * You have been doing the same thing. Removing Indian history tags from articles of the same relevance such ancient indic civilizations.  You have already been told not to do this by other users yet you contine.  You have reverted countless times and do not cease.  The pak tag that u put on the articles is respected and stays there.  Yet, you remove the indian history tag there assessments that have long been there.  At the time of this writng there is no WikiProject History of South Asia only WikiProject South Asia.--D-Boy 05:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This one is not really for the help desk. Ideally it should be taken to WP:DR. However there are several ongoing discussions about it including one at WT:INB. Please participate and try to resolve along with others there &mdash; Lost (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I created WikiProject South Asia to stop you (User:Dangerous-Boy) from tagging Pakistan related articles with Republic of India flags. I created a neutral Template:WP SouthAsia to replace your politiclly provacative and offensive tag. This new template covers the whole region, good for both Pakistan and Republic of India. Yet you are still imposing your nationalist approach towards the countries which are not part of and never were part of Republic of India; which was created, as we know it today, on August 15, 1947. Szhaider 05:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As stated at the top of the page, "This is not the place to post notices of disputes, questions about particular articles, or requests for assistance. Please follow Resolving disputes." ( Radiant ) 09:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

About Resolving Disputes
The amount of reading through the jungle here makes it close to impossible to find how to request a mediator. In my opinion one needs a lifetime study almost. If I take distance from it all I have hope, but once I see the pages and start reading I realize I need to go to bed in time as well because I need to go to work next morning. It feels like everything has done to make it (justice and dispute resolution) as least accessible as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * The sidebar (dispute-resolution) should help you there. ( Radiant ) 08:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * I believe the name is fine enough at the moment. Adding amicably may confuse things, its better to keep it generalized and to the point.  If people reference to this page it usually should be to gather information about how to solve disputes amicably.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk)  05:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dispute resolution is most needed when the parties are not amicable. Arbitration is part of the dispute resolution process and can be anything but amicable. —Centrx→talk &bull; 05:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * True, true Centrx but do you believe that the policy requires such a rename?¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 05:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that would not be an accurate name. —Centrx→talk &bull; 06:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to clarify it, as harsh as the process may become the question was whether the policy needed a rename. Pretty much keeping to "Dispute resolution" leaves it to enough interpretation.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk)  06:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Although if you think it'll help, you could add a sentence to this page stating it's preferable for disputes to be resolved amicably. ( Radiant ) 09:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you resolve a huge dispute between hundreds of editors over naming vs commonality?
That is my question. Simply south 17:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It might help if you gave a link to what you're talking about. In general, the answer is to request comments and make a compromise.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving of Bath - see the talk page. Simply south 19:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see hundreds of editors there. I see a valid Move Request that failed to reach consensus.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok maybe that was a bit exaggerated but there are tens of editors here disputing the location. I'm not sure which would be the best use for bath\Bath. Basically, the Qs are (look at both RMs and surrounding deiscussions):


 * Is Bath classed as in Somerset?
 * Should the Bath article be changed into a disambiguation page?
 * Should the article about the city be reverted back to Bath?
 * Other locations


 * I'm sorry, i dd think it was hundreds and miscounted slightly but there are a lot of editors here involved (including me).


 * Simply south 11:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In general, the answer is to request comments and make a compromise.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom and content
Just changing the section on involving ArbCom, who will not rule on content disputes - see official policy here:Arbitration_policy/Past_decisions, and the many declarations from ArbCom that they do not consider content disputes. Mostlyharmless 03:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the addition, though some further clarification between the definitions of "content" v. "user conduct" issues might be helpful. For example, in scanning the results of recent ArbCom cases, a frequent result is, "User XXX is banned from editing the following articles."  Though technically that's a "user conduct" issue, many laypeople will probably still regard that as a "content" issue, since the core of the dispute is usually, "User XXX and YYY disagreed about an article's content." --Elonka 05:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * Agree completely, except for one thing. The proposal's too lenient. Day, week, indef. Three strikes and you're off to find another username. Mostlyharmless 20:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not the right talk page for this, Vandalism would be more appropriate, but if there are "last-warning tags all over the place" it is probably an IP. There is nothing permanent that can be done about an IP because they are re-assigned, usually rather frequently. If an IP is a recurrent problem, it usually means it is an open proxy or it belongs to a school or other such organization, in which case it is usually blocked for 6 months (and then longer if it continues). —Centrx→talk &bull; 21:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please Do not Delete Minda's Inky World
I am the owner of Minda's Inky World, both the blog and the article. I would like for you to not delete my article because the purpose of the article is to spread word to other College students who use Tablet PC's to increase their success in College. I would like to also use the article to spread the word about Ink Blogs. Ink Blogs are personal blogs written using Digital Ink. If more users know about writing blogs in Digital Ink they can understand how to increase their creativity. If you feel this article is not important to the Tablet PC community then I am sorry but I personally feel it is important and would like other's to at least have to ability to increase their knowledge about the full capabilities of their Tablets. Minday 04:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Minday
 * That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising service. —Centrx→talk &bull; 04:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Reporting Admin Abuse
Hello, where do I report an Admin that is abusing their abilities? A page was vandalized, someone removed content that had appeared on it for at least a year, and had also deleted cited info without any explanations. I restored the content, but because my IP is similar to that of a blocked user, an overzealous admin actually restored the unexplained deletion and blocked my account. I have made several attempts to communicate with the admin without making a single personal attack, his response is to delete my comments on his talk page. How can I report admin abuse? I can't seem to find the correct forum to do so. 74.230.195.63 09:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * On Administrator's noticeboard it says "Report all other types of incidents (e.g. blocked users evading blocks) on the subpage Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:AN/I). If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so there." So Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents sounds like the right place.
 * I'm sorry you're having these problems. You may want to consider logging in with a username:  see Why create an account?.  Getting a username on Wikipedia is very fast and easy compared with registering at many other websites.  My understanding is that users have a right to delete messages from their talk pages;  however, in this case probably they should also reply meaningfully to you.
 * Are you sure you're using the same IP address every time? Some ISP's keep switching IP addresses, even during the same session, I think.  Logging in with a username would solve that.  When I look at your User Contributions, I don't see all the events you mention.  Maybe the admin did reply to you, but put the reply on the talk page of the IP address you were using at the time.  It may have been deleted from there since then.  You can go to the admin's talk page and look at the page history to see the entry where you added a comment, and see what IP address you were using at that time.  Then go to the talk page of that IP address, and check the page history of that talk page to see whether the admin replied, and read the reply if there is one.
 * By the way, this page isn't really the right place to ask this sort of question. In general, if you search around and can't find where to ask a certain type of question about how to use Wikipedia you can try the Help desk -- I figure someone there should at least be able to tell you where the right page is for your type of question. --Coppertwig 09:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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


 * Conduct a survey should be placed at the end, or at least not at the front, because it is a discouraged misleading method and furthermore any survey must come after discussion and summoning opinions from everywhere in order to be at all effective.


 * Article RfCs are the main avenue for resolving disputes and are "outside opinions". Only user RfCs could be considered a last resort. For policies, an RfC is the first resort.
 * A freeze in the third section must always accompany discussion, otherwise it is the same as the "disengage for a while". The freeze is to facilitate discussion, especially with outside opinions. —Centrx→talk &bull; 16:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * If you're been trying to engage in discussion and working in good faith, that will be obvious to outside parties in the various dispute resolution steps. Running afoul of WP:3RR is often considered to be edit-warring, except for reverting vandals. Even if you feel it's necessary to revert that many times, please avoid doing so. If the other edits are that problematic, invite some outside eyes with a third opinion request or a request for comments. Vassyana 23:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think everything you said is rational, my only concern is that it is not always obvious what constitutes a "revert" (e.g., you try to address a deficiency claimed by an editor in an edit summary, then get told that constituted 1 'revert' because it re-introduced wording that was in the article sometime in the past).


 * For example, someone undoes an edit with an edit summary "uncited WP:ATT" and then you post in the discussion page "here's the cite to the NYT article, here's the exact wording" and you re-add the content, along with the link to the cite in your edit summary (which is already a footnote in the article itself). It seems a lot of times people don't even read the citations closely, so its understandable it could be missed, and undone yet again. What's a little odd is how readding and showing it was not uncited equals a "revert" or "edit warring," especially when the person may not have even read the discussion page? I guess I am not as confident in the "universal obviousness" as others may be.


 * Nevertheless, your point is duly noted. Perhaps your point about "outside eyes" should be somewhere in the paragraph about discussion pages. Thanks for your response. dr.ef.tymac 03:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Disputed section
The following section is disputed. Netscott appears to wish to change the wording because he considers it "propaganda" or some such.


 * If consensus is difficult to gauge from discussion alone, consider conducting a survey of opinion in order to clarify the issues in the discussion. Note that a survey cannot generate consensus, but is helpful for understanding it. Similarly, if you believe that users are ignoring a consensus, a survey cannot force those users to accept your proposed consensus -- although a survey might assist users in understanding the balance of opinions and reasons for those opinions on a given dispute, it can also easily degenerate into an argument over whether a particular survey is fairly constructed or representative.  See Polling is not a substitute for discussion for reasons why discussion is necessary and polling is superior.


 * Discussion welcome.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And what is wrong with the updated version that better corresponds to the new title "Polling is not a substitue for discussion"? I find it somewhat ironic that this dispute resolution page lists taking a survey as an option. Obviously it is redudant to re-emphasize discussion when folks are to have exhausted the discussion route in following previous dispute resolution steps. 10:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that this edit summary by Netscott is a lie. He says he is restoring the long-standing version, whereas in fact he is restoring a change he just made to the long-standing version.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Lie? Did you read the edit summary entirely? Maybe you'd better include the rest here. 10:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, and in its entirety it's an untruthful statement made with the intention to deceive.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You removed the section entirely. I restored it (with the logcial wording update I made due to Polling is not a substitute for discussion no longer being called Discuss, don't vote). Did I miss something? 11:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering you added the slogan link "polling is evil", the earlier characterization of "propaganda" (see also) is fitting. 11:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, obviously every opinion that does not match your own is a propagandistic slogan. Really. Such characterisations are sooo helpful.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The statement "X is evil" when X itself is not inherently evil is very obviously propagandistic in nature. 11:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Only a Sith deals in absolutes.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you don't have anything but a pat and nonsensical response? 11:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem appears to be that you seem to be unable to distinguish between tongue-in-cheek explanations and propagandistic slogans.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well when a propagandistcially entitled essay makes its way onto guideline and policy pages then it is best to call a spade a spade. Folks have been taking the slogan "polling is evil" as a given... without reading the finer details of what that essay is saying... my editing is to counteract this habit. 11:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please provide evidence for that sweeping assumption?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As an editor since 2004 (yes I edited before using this username) I am basing my statement upon what I personally have witnessed. Obviously the reader is free to choose to believe me or not... I have no reason to dissemble such a thing however. The reality is that we're discussing the wording changes that I made that were in accord with the new title of Polling is not a substitute for discussion which you disagreed with. I still don't understand why you've disagreed with those changes. 12:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Does that imply that you agree with the title of Polling is not a substitute for discussion? Because that would be a great step forward. Anyway my objection is that it weakens the phrase. Such weakenings are quite common esp. on WP:CSD and are generally unhelpful erosion.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "weaken"? The wording change better reflected the current title. Despite my view that the need for Polling is not a substitute for discussion to be renamed Polling and for "Polling is not a substitute for discussion" to be a section on that page, it is logical to update the wording referencing that page in the meantime. 12:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So in other words you have no actual ev--Minderbinder 13:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)idence whatsoever, and instead try for an argument to authority by alluding to your account age, to back your proof by assertion that your edits are "logical". Sorry, that's not going to fly.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You've not proven otherwise. I suppose others will just have to join the discussion here. 12:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are suggesting a change. When asked for reasons for that change, you come up with convoluted wording that boils down to "because I say so". Wikipedia don't work that way.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You've not explained how my edit was illogical and/or outside of policies and/or guidelines. 12:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyone else involved in this discussion besides you two? Seriously, unilateral changes to policy pages? --Minderbinder 13:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Is anyone disputing that this update and copy edit to reflect the update is logical? Seriously. 13:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is an unnecessary weakening to make this page favor your opinion over actuality.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, again what is being "weakened"? 13:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The phrasing, well duh. What is this, a fallacy of many questions?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "weakened"? the wording changes I made better reflect the newer and current title. How does this "weaken the phrasing"? Where is the problem? You're not explaining the logic for your undoing of my edits properly. 13:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that it needed to be "updated" beyond changing the link (which I didn't revert). Please don't change policies without consensus.
 * Come on you two can't you do better than the 'ol WP:IDONTLIKEIT? 14:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your edits come across as pushing a personal agenda and ignoring consensus and current wikipedia practice. You like that better?  --Minderbinder 14:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My counter is that there is an unecessary (per the very page being referenced itself) value statement regarding "superiority". What is the logic for this opinion based value statement being a part of this disputed section when wording that better reflects the page being refenced is merited? 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, dude, way to ask loaded questions!  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Kindly refrain from addressing me as "dude". Such language in this context is not civil. The line, "discussion is necessary and superior to voting." is a value statement. Why is this here? 15:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that voting should take place without discussion, or that voting will lead to compromise where discussion will not? —Centrx→talk &bull; 17:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Centrx, have you reviewed my edit? If not please do so and then tell me if it is illogical or not, ok? Thanks. 17:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So is that a no? —Centrx→talk &bull; 17:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No... polling's only going to provide what it has always provided and that is a guage on where consensus stands. Forgive my saying so but I don't have the impression that you've even reviewed my edit. 17:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your edit does not say that, and weakens the standing of discussion. —Centrx→talk &bull; 17:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, why is "taking a survey" as a dispute resolution option even here? My edit doesn't weaken anything it removes an illogical value statement and replaces it with a fact. 17:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Taking a survey can be useful for dispute resolution, though one of the most useful situations is when there is a tiny obstinate unreasonable minority for which it needs to be shown just how unconvincing they have been and how unsupported they are. In less extreme situations, it is still useful but that does mean that it replaces discussion nor that it is better than discussion. —Centrx→talk &bull; 17:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

←Again, replacing a value statement with a fact (which is perfectly in accord with what you've just said here) is logical. 17:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It might be best to say "usually" superior or change it to "usually better", but it is a straight fact that discussion is better than polling in most cases. It is the only way to reach a better solution on a given issue and it is the only way to reach an actual consensus. —Centrx→talk &bull; 17:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to think that this kind of erosion is bad for policy pages. Someone changes "X" to "usually X"; a month later someone unrelated changes "usually X" to "sometimes X"; a month later someone else again removes "X" because it was only sometimes anyway so that can hardly be relevant. There was a lot of this going on at e.g. WP:CSD until I did some heavy-duty cleaning on that.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Talking
I'd like to add a couple sentences to the "Talk to the other parties involved" section, as follows:
 * Aside from a talkpage, it may be worth trying to talk to someone in an off-wiki fashion, via email, IRC, or IMs. Not all editors are willing to do this, so it is not required.  However, for those editors who do use IRC or IMs, it is often easier to talk through a dispute in a real-time and private fashion, rather than via delayed messages on public talkpages.

Would this be acceptable? --Elonka 00:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that should be encouraged, and I don't know why it would be necessary. If someone wants to be contacted off-wiki, their contact information will be on their user page or their e-mail will be actived. —Centrx→talk &bull; 21:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Compromise Regina Neighbourhoods
I have posted a compromise to the issues in the Talk:Regina Neighbourhoods. It is my hope that this will lead to a solution over the disputed figures and edits. I also hope that this will eliminate future accusations as to my identity and/or relation to other banned users. I would appreciate that you read over the compromise and comment on it. I just want to find a solution, that will satisfy all parties.--207.81.56.49 07:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Better to put this on one of the subpage listings. Few people will read it here. —Centrx→talk &bull; 21:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Question
Where can I ask or put my complains if an administrator is bugging my userpage--SuperHotWiki 07:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard, but you should carefully consider the issue—Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not comment on the size of anyone's head. —Centrx→talk &bull; 21:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding edit wars without giving up on the whole Wikipedia process
I've been dealing on several articles with one or two particular persons who have such an intense ax to grind that no amount of discussion has yet brought us to anything other than heel-digging. (In particular, the articles involve John Wayne and James Stewart (actor) most recently, and Randolph Scott and George Reeves a while back.) Now all four of these topics are areas where I have a great deal of background, including published material. But in keeping with Wikipedia's standards, I try not to insert any original research. But I have a great amount of knowledge of citable data and where to find it, and I have been as conscientious as I can about providing reference citations for anything, particularly in matters that might engender controversy. But partly because Wikipedia is becoming much more relied upon as the final word on many topics (even topics whose articles might change drastically from hour to hour), I have felt highly energized to correct false assumptions in these articles, especially when they reflect inaccurately badly on the subject or feed gossip where the truth is different. The fact is, though, I am exhausted. I've asked for mediation and gotten no response. I've tried to explain and cite within an inch of my life. But these fellows (Chunda18 and DaveyJones1968, in particular) are adamantly opposed to objective evidence if it contradicts their agenda. (The most prominent item on that agenda is that John Wayne and James Stewart were right-wing racists and that any favorable remark about them should either be stricken or so qualified as to erase the positive aspect. A secondary agenda seems to be that "an openly racist draft-dodger," as DaveyJones1968 describes Wayne, could not possibly be as tall as he is reported to have been.  I've got better things to do than fighting with someone over how tall a dead guy was, but it's a good example.)

My question here is not so much about how to resolve an issue with someone who doesn't want it resolved if it means giving up hate-mongering. Rather it is a more philosophical and general one: how does Wikipedia as an entity succeed if people who are educated or otherwise well-informed on a subject can only add to Wikipedia's store of knowledge by the enormously time-consuming task of correcting and re-correcting and re-correcting misinformation by people with axes to grind? This far supersedes my own personal experiences. If a small number of rabidly determined obstructionists can pervert -- sometimes quite subtly -- the value of an article while the people who have genuine expertise in researching the material (and thus in providing citations and other verification) can only revert when they've nothing better to do, how can anyone ever intelligently find Wikipedia to be an even remotely reliable source? I'm sure some of the dispute resolution processes work fine. But what about the many examples where one person in the dispute does not want resolution? I have reached such a level of exhaustion from the back-and-forth in some of these squabbles that I feel, at the moment, inclined to disengage from Wikipedia entirely. The only thing that keeps me from doing so is the frequent discovery that some newspaper article has quoted an utterly erroneous item from Wikipedia as fact, an item that stems either from ignorance of that morning's contributor or from personal bias. Is there a sense of what I'm concerned about among the wider body of Wikipedia editors, or is it all a tempest in a teapot? Certainly I've seen in the list of silly edit wars some administrative comment along the lines of "These guys fought for eight months over how tall so-and-so was. But who cares?" Well, maybe there are a lot of trivial arguments among editors. I've finally bailed out of the "John Wayne was a racist right-winger so he couldn't possibly be 6'4" tall" contretemps. But at what point when we pooh-pooh the silliness of certain arguments and say "who cares" does Wikipedia stop being trustworthy about much of anything one might look up?

I've done some silly things, particularly in my early days editing at Wikipedia, having started editing before I was aware of certain rules. I've tried to eliminate such things from my editing since then, and I've apologized to people I acted improperly toward. I think anyone who looks at my contributions will find that I am primarily focused on providing citable and useful information, even if it makes someone I admire look bad or someone I despise look good. A comparison with the contributions of Chunda18 or DaveyJones1968 (if indeed they are separate people) on the same topics will reveal quite a different approach. But here in this forum it's my wish to engage in a more general discussion about how to approach the problem I described above: dedicated researchers being overwhelmed by people with a POV agenda that virtually denies the necessity or meaning of citation, especially in light of my own experience that requests for help are not likely to get a response. Monkeyzpop 07:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I totally endorse this view of the situation. Dealing with unstoppable, disruptive forces has consumed most of my time on wikipedia (as well). A discussion might be a good idea.-Catneven 10:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

improve, don't revert?
Our policy now says, "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it." I'd like to discuss whether this wording should be softened on the basis that it doesn't reflect how we really do things or how we should do things. I feel like I see many blatant POV insertions that aren't true vandalism but that are best handled by reverting them (nicely, and with an explanation) rather than by trying to improve them. Trying to NPOV these good-faith-but-terribe edits often requires adding weasel words and leads to an article that is worse than the one that would result from reversion. And in practice, it seems that most respected editors do deal with such edits by reverting (again, nicely and with explanation). Why don't we change the wording to something like, "Try not to simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit if you can, rather than reverting it.  If you feel you cannot improve the edit, explain nicely why you think it should be reverted."

Part of the problem here may be that the first sentence of the wording I'm discussing talks about "in a dispute", as though it might not apply to obviously bad edits, while the second sentence seems to be talking about any edit, even if it's out of the blue and unlikely to find any community support.

Finally, I realize (I think) that this is long-standing policy and this issue has probably been discussed before. If so, please point me to any relevant discussion I should read. --Allen 01:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly many edits do warrant being reverted outright. The wording here is supposed to convey they fact there are many times where someone does have a legitimate objection to something in an article and so changes it. Their new version may have its own faults, or may go too far in the other direction, but simply reverting back to the old version does not address their legitimate concern, so improving upon the edit or finding an accurate middle would be the best solution in such case. That is the idea anyway. —Centrx→talk &bull; 20:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You and I might know what's intended, but I'm not sure someone unfamiliar with the policy would understand, because the current language doesn't specify that it only refers to cases where the edit addresses a legitimate problem with the article. As far as I can tell, it basically says, "don't revert, ever," even though we know that's not what's intended.  What do you think of my proposed replacement wording?  --Allen 02:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think your wording is good. Rhanyeia  12:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Even the first part of your wording would be helpful: "Try not to simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit if you can, rather than reverting it." Best regards Rhanyeia  15:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If there are no other comments about this I'll try these first two sentences. :) Best regards Rhanyeia  12:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

vandalism?
some strange stuff was added to the material today. I reverted it just now. --Rocksanddirt 16:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So it goes. —Centrx→talk &bull; 20:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Supervision process - input and collaboration sought
I've been looking at a kind of serious article dispute that's sadly not uncommon, and where (for various reasons) current dispute resolution processes don't work well, or quickly enough. A number of articles are train-wrecked by this scenario, and a number of positive editors driven away.

The basic notion would address situations where a period of editorial supervision is better suited, rather than mediation or arbitration. These situations don't happen often, but they do happen, and WP:DR doesn't handle it well right now. When it does happen, a disproportionate amount of damage is done to the project and to its editors. In some cases, I think we need a dispute resolution avenue that doesn't need to go to arbcom, that's supervisory rather than judicial (somewhat like Mentorship), and which is accessible much earlier on as one of many dispute options.

Unlike other interventions, the intervention here would be to enforce the establishment of good editorship, in an environment where AGF cannot be assumed, and create a more level playing field for a neutral and objective approach to become established by editors who are prepared to respect Wikipedia editing policy. Evidence of appropriateness would be required for acceptance, and it would not be accepted if mediation or arbitration was in progress.

In this sense supervision would parallel mediation; both take place over a medium period of time, but where RfM requires and assumes good faith, supervision is explicitly designed for disputes where good faith is dubious or not to be assumed. Where mediation looks to editors to understand policy and work together, supervision addresses directly editors who persistently refuse to edit in a policy-compliant manner.

See Article supervision proposal (further notes on its talk page). Views welcomed. Looking to see whether others have noticed similar situations, and would support this as a useful option and approach, within existing dispute resolution processes. Examples available.

FT2 (Talk 09:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The wikipedians bill of rights
On "delicate" topics, Wikipedia easily degenerates into an exhausting edit war, where often those who yell louder and are willing to spend more time can eventually impose their line. An help to mitigate this could be to include a policy with "the right to add a referenced sentence", that guarantees that your contribution wont be lost even if you have no time to waste in an endlessly discussion.--BMF81 18:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no efficient DR process
Does anyone agree that new DR processes need to be suggested? There are no efficient means to defend wikipedia policies, not even the most fundamental ones like WP:NPOV and WP:ATT. Someone who is unaware of those policies and starts edit-warring and disruptive editing can easily pose a problem to the project. Why would a policy-abiding editor have to waste his time on RFC and mediation, which are btw very inefficient policies. I mean everyone complains that NPOV is violated on a regular basis, but nobody tries to find out why. In my opinion it is due to inefficient WP:DR methods. Procedures such as RFC are based on personal views and do not provide a fast response. The project lacks in bureaucracy, hence why it's unable to defend its non-negotiable policies. Miskin 10:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The processes are inefficient partly because there are people involved at every step. As long as we dealing with other human beings, the processes will be less than automatic, will incur delays simply due to time between edits, and time for minds to change and come to compromises and conclusions. I'm not sure that any process that takes into account the social aspect of this project can avoid these problems. Do you have a suggestion that might help? Sancho 16:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I honestly believe that there's room for amelioration. I find that noticeboards in general tend to be effective, e.g. for defending policies such as 3RR or NPA. There are no noticeboards for unarguably more important policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:ATT. RFC does not guarantee that WP:Consensus won't collide with WP:NPOV, and is therefore not an efficient method. What if there was a trusted comity whose sole purpose would be the preservation of NPOV? Incidents would come to its attention via a noticeboard, but the comity's purpose would be to determine whether the rules stated under WP:NPOV are respected, and not provide personal opinions such as RFC participants do. I'm not sure if what I'm saying is clear. Miskin 12:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oooh, I thought you meant something like dictatoral, robotic, efficiency. We won't make it that far, but something like noticeboards to more quickly attract attention to pressing matters is something to think about. I think for 3RR and NPA, those are rare enough and more clear cut that they can be dealt with efficiently. 3RR just requires looking at diffs and doing some clock math. NPA violations are also not hard to recognize and correct. NPOV and ATT take a bit more time to recognize, and certainly much time to correct. Some articles take weeks or months to bring in line with these two policies, even with a couple of administrators and a collection of editors working in good faith. The backlog for NPOV disputes is over 5000 articles long: Category:NPOV_disputes. But the noticeboard that you are suggesting, it would just receive an article name, and then output a ruling that is either "Adheres to a neutral point of view", or "Does not adhere to a neutral point of view"? A wikiproject that focuses on this backlog is also an option. I can't find one right now. Sancho 15:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

IP-block for ever
How one can make a claim for releasing 141.76.45.34 from the eternal block? No reason is given for blocking it for ever. I checked the history and nothing especial was found. The responsible moderator is MikkoM. Thank you in advance. 80.223.125.28 21:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless you typed in the wrong IP, User:141.76.45.34 was blocked as an open proxy, which are banned from Wikimedia projects. IP addresses do change, so I have changed the expiry to 3 years, but it was blocked again recently so it was probably recently used by a registered account vandalizing. —Centrx→talk &bull; 05:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Elvis Presley
On the [Elvis Presley] page I made a change then [Dreaded Walrus] reverted it, i changed it back then left it alone. he reverted again. Then I tried fixing a different problem with the article he reverted it as well, he broke the 3 revert rule. And seems as though no matter how many different things I try to fix he will feel happy reverting 100 times today. But bottom line he broke the rule. And i think an admin should let him know.Aladdin Zane 18:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. I didn't break WP:3RR, as I have made three reverts to the page. As have you, Aladdin Zane. My three reverts can be seen here:  . And besides, I feel that in all three cases my reverts have been to uphold consensus (I was the third editor that I counted to attempt a dialogue with this user on their talk page), and to uphold Wikipedia guidelines. On top of this, I don't think Dispute Resolution is really the right place for this, as user has not really attempted much in the way of regular discussion, either on their talk page, or mine, and has instead responded with the occasional personal remark. (See the user's talk page if necessary). And for the record Aladdin Zane, WP:3RR violations should be reported to WP:AN/3RR, not dispute resolution, or disupute resolution talk. --Dreaded Walrus t c 18:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)