Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution/Archive 5

Personal attack by another editor
At the suggestion of User:CapnZapp, who had advised User:Pyxis Solitary and me to avoid each other, I am bringing this issue here. While Pyxis Solitary isn't using my name, the note added to Pyxis Solitary's user page on Feb. 4 — just two days after CapnZapp and others advised us to avoid each other — is clearly referring to things on my user page, such as my edit count and the accolades I've gratefully accepted from the many fellow editors with whom I collegially work. I believe it's wrong not only to make a personal attack like that but also to be "clever" and attack another editor using insinuation. I ask for help or at least advice: Is it OK for that editor to do this? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

About Scythians topic
Hello. This is about a dispute between me and one of your users. Although I changed my latest comment according to his notice and your regulations, and posted a new and decent one under the topic Scythians, user Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked me subjectively as probably he didn’t want to hear the new argument about them and Sarmatians. This is ridiculous and must be unacceptable by Wikipedia, if you are really open to everybody and respect new findings and results. There I just wrote about the outcome of latest research by Turkish academics and scholars as people are now researching and learning and sharing the new findings as well criticizing the popular old-fashioned history.

Mind you, I am an academician and I believe I should be able to post messages about the works of mine and other scholars in this free world and particularly in this free platform, don't you think so? After all I have come across with many bad comments about Turks in Wikipedia pages under such topics as Armenian genocide, so obviously some people are quite free to post comments about Turks. How about us?? Why can't I post a decent argument about the origin of Scythians and Sarmatians according to latest research? Did you think that blocking people and erasing comments will help prevent the new ideas from spreading?

I am sorry but from now on I will start thinking that Wikipedia is a sided platform full of cliche and prejudice unless you take an action towards this wrong behaviour. If you don't, I will be sharing this with every single person and institution I am in touch with in Turkey and abroad while I will always stay away from Wikipedia.

Thank you. Buusra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.113.8.2 (talk) 08:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to resolve a dispute by an indefinite topic ban?

 * Is it acceptable to resolve a dispute by an indefinite topic ban? WP:Dispute resolution describes a number of steps, which I don't remeber to pass. Please inform me about my rights, do I have any? Xx236 (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Your rights are set out in the topic ban notice on your user talk page: Either appeal to administrator's noticeboard (which is different from administrator's noticeboard/incidents where your ban was imposed) or to the administrator who imposed the ban, Vanamonde. Though there were topic issues involved, your ban at ANI resulted from your alleged conduct rather than from the content dispute, per se, and there are no steps required prior to filing a conduct complaint at ANI. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There exists an apparent WP:COI when an involved editor achives a ban of his/her opponent. Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed change at Template:Calm
I am proposing a change in Template:Calm to add a link to this page. As this template is used in pages where arguments tend to be heated, we can help avoid conflicts by this change. Have a look at this talk page suggestion. Yashovardhan (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that the aforementioned change has been done after consultations on the Template talk page. As such, dispute resolution processes may be used more often. Please be prepared for an increased inflow of new complaints at different noticeboards/processes. Yashovardhan (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

What to do with No original research/Noticeboard?
The No original research/Noticeboard may have some volunteers, but more volunteers are needed. Some cases are left without a mediator to answer them. I tried addressing this at WT:NOR, WT:NORN, and WP:VPP. However, no one responded. I've not yet addressed this at WP:AN because I'm unsure whether the issue affects administrators. What to do about the Noticeboard, mentioned by this policy? --George Ho (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

NPOV and SPI noticeboards
Seems that No original research/Noticeboard is not the only noticeboard having issues, particularly participation. The issue of Neutral point of view/Noticeboard was addressed at its project talk page, particularly insufficient neutral volunteers. Also, the backlogging of Sockpuppet investigations has been addressed at WP:AN. The policy page mentions these noticeboards, but it looks like more volunteers are needed for them. --George Ho (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

More noticeboards
Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard may be crowded and receiving responses. However, even when not backlogged, some messages may not have received one, and then they get archived without one. More volunteers would be nice. --George Ho (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed addition describing excellent discussion
I propose the first paragraph of the section "Discuss with the other party" be modified by insertion of the italicized text below. The italicized wikilink points at the essay WP:Writing for the opponent.


 * "Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia. The first step to successful discussion to make sure everyone understands the other's point of view. Many conflicts result from misunderstandings that could be easily avoided by taking time to repeat back the other editor's opposing viewpoint. This ensures everyone knows exactly what is in dispute, why it is in dispute, and communicates to others that you are willing to work with them constructively. When others feel you are listening they are less likely to response with hostility. In contrast, discussing heatedly or poorly – or not at all – will make other editors less sympathetic to your position, and prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. Sustained discussion between the parties, even if not immediately successful, demonstrates your good faith and shows you are trying to reach a consensus. Try negotiating a truce or proposing a compromise through negotiation."

The remaining paragraphs would not be changed.

Comments? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I've taken workshops on active listening too.  However it's a short step from active listening to open mocking of ones opponents and mockery does not a productive discussion make.  I'd rather direct people to WP:DBAD because it's at least unambiguous and simple.-- Jayron 32 02:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Given the link to "Don't be a jerk" I assume this was humor.  But if it wasn't humor, I don't find the worry that editors will be abusive to be a good reason to not encourage people to use some form of Cyclic redundancy check to clear up disputes before they occur.  If the possibily that people will be a jerk anyway were a reason for not providing helpful advice, then our policy, guideline, and infopages would be hugely condensed.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Dispute resolution RfC
Hello. You are invited to comment on this RfC, which seeks to reform certain aspects of Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. Biblio (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Final mediation/final arbitration
I just undid these changes because neither is precisely correct. Formal mediation is not the "last resort" because, while there is a natural progression — 3O, DRN, MEDCOM, RFC — you can start doing content DR at any one of them without doing the "lower" ones and, indeed, go backwards so long as you only do them one at a time. Moreover, RFC is closer to being the last resort than MEDCOM since it invites the entire community into the resolution process. MEDCOM is often referred to as Formal Mediation because both DRN and, to a lesser extent, 3O do forms of informal or semi-formal mediation. (It's also somewhat a legacy name from the days in which the Mediation Cabal was operating, which was also less formal than MEDCOM.) On the other hand, Arbitration is never called "Formal Arbitration" and, while it's generally recognized that 3O and DRN do informal mediation, action taken at one of the conduct forums — administrators individually, AN, ANI, AN/3, and others — is never thought of as informal arbitration. I can see how the symmetry might be thought of as being nice, but it's not accurate. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 05:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

An editor who deletes an input in the "See also" section iso moving it to the "External links" section - is that a good editor?
I've got +900 edits and contributions to the wikipedia, not always small stuff. I contribute financially to the wikipedia. I hold 3 Academic degrees. My first edits date from 2006. I want to change my view, but I have the impression moderators have become very irrespectful for contributions. Is the award mechanism still ok? Does it really take that much more effort for a moderator to move a contribution from e.g. the "See also" section to the "External links" section iso just deleting valuable contribution to the article? Thy--SvenAERTS (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't say whether the editor you are referring to is right or wrong but as a general rule, The "See also" section is meant to contain links to Wikipedia articles that are related to the topic whereas the "External Links" is to hold links to articles/websites which are outside of Wikipedia. Eg. In the article, Kolkata Knight Riders, the link to the page List of Kolkata Knight Riders records might be a good addition to the "See also" section but a link to the official website of the team will be good only at the "External Links" section. If you have a specific dispute, you can use any of the Dispute resolution methods available. Yashovardhan (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Weasel words for WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE
Try to avoid discussing conduct issues on article Talk pages. To me, this suggests that article talk pages are appropriate spaces to discuss conduct disputes. It suggests that it's discouraged, but not strictly prohibited. Is my understanding correct? At any rate, I believe the section should be re-written to explicitly clarify which spaces are allowed for discussing conduct disputes. I personally feel that conduct disputes should never be discussed on an article talk page, and I would support a rule change to this effect. Fluous (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds too prescriptive and rule creepish to me. A guidance on where to discuss is a better, which is what we have now. Stickee (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support  A prior section of this guideline explicitly directs people to Focus on content at article talk and not ed behavior.  I frequently object to rule wording changes citing CREEP but since Fluos is only asking that we write consistently CREEP is not in play here.  Since WP:FOC is already the rule, I tried a bold edit to eliminate the internal contradiction. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's not at odds with FOC. FOC also gives guidance, and not a rule that discussing conduct is completely prohibited.That's why it says "focus on content" and not "only discuss content". Stickee (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I see the point of the fine hair you're splitting. I don't agree that's a correct reading, but I do admit its ambiguous.  The primary guideline for talk page etiquette is, of course the WP:TPG.   I'll start a new thread at that location to ask for a wider input on the question.  I'll post a link to that thread here once I've copy edited it, and will include pings to the eds who have commented so far.  Give me a few minutes... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I just posted a thread about this issue at the main guideline discussing talk page use. The new thread is here.. Would welcome your participation there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Graham's hierarchy of disagreement as it applies to dispute resolution at Wikipedia
Section contains a picture of our version of Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. The lowest tier there is "Ad Hominem", the definition of which uses the term "authority" (http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html, section "DH1.") In a recent dispute, the question came up how exactly that term applies to Wikipedia. Can we establish a consensus for that? &mdash; Sebastian 11:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Volunteeriness of participation in content dispute resolution, consequences of nonparticipation
I have recently become aware that admins occasionally take failure or refusal to participate in content dispute resolution into consideration in determining whether an editor is NOT HERE. We in DR have always said that participation in content DR is entirely voluntary. I have attempted to reconcile these positions (and give adequate warning to DR parties) in this edit. Comments and revisions are welcome. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Long edit summaries
Everyone involved in content dispute resolution needs to be aware of this discussion and survey. Edit summaries have been recently increased from about 250 characters to 1000 characters. See my !vote here about that issue, but your opinion may, of course, go the other way. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Suicide sensitive matter unverified, unspecified, triggering and unnecessary.
Article citation 3 dispose an useless piece information regarding the subject of the article without any verification or validation about the type of material and dispose a triggering information without any concern to the reader.

No index about suicide deaths or any actual information about the matter, disposing merely some random citation unverified and unspecified regarding the subject out of media sensationalism.

Providing triggering content without suicide headline prevention incitating the subject as a form of death by suicide disregarding the purpose of the page or concern about the viewer.

Proposal to deletion of the unnecessary and unverified mention.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeontan AuraAcqua (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to make discretionary sanctions actually work, by auto-delivering the required DS "awareness" notices
Please see: WP:Village pump (proposals) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

RFC pending to close MedCom
A proposal has been made to close the Mediation Committee. Feel free to discuss this at Village pump (proposals). — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 12:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding my Wikipedia page which was earlier there but got deleted
Hi this is Sandeep anand.my page has been deleted suddenly out of no reason I tried to recover it but seems no possible can i know how and why it happened ? Sandeepanandactor (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Usage of templates
This is put because of dispute with a user regarding usage of templates and things which can and can't be put.

Case in point: diff. My argument is that if cricket games which have International status can't be added on the Season page but why can't it be added to the template. It will be easier for user to navigate for a particular tournament. --Ankurc.17 (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Malayalam films Boxoffice.
I don't know whether it is the right place to raise the concern and complaint. But someone is trying to change Boxoffice collection of one particular actor which is Mammootty and his films collection. One malayalam movie named Madhura Raja released in 2019 grossed 100 crores at the Boxoffice and for your kind reference its proof is here

If someone try to add the source one person constantly remove that particular content and claims that its producer figure not exact gross. But this same person allowed other actors films gross with unreliable sources and producer figure to be in the list of highest grossing malayalam films. I have doubt that this guy may be a fanboy of some actor from same industry or may be hater of above mentioned actor. Anyways in the source mentioned above, the is no words that say its producer figure, can see it in last section of the article and the source is geniune one. Kindly look into this matter. Thanks. Regards. Ambeinghari (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Dispute resolution thread
Hi all. I've opened a discussion on Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes at Village_pump_(idea_lab). If anyone is is watching this page, I'd appreciate your thoughts. Steven  Crossin  17:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Do we have to submit our names or can we submit an anonymous dispute? Haikoman (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Responded on user's talk page. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Feedback requested at Talk:Great Chinese Famine
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Great Chinese Famine in connection with dispute resolution and proper use of Talk pages. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Issue and discrepancies with The English and Turkish version of the article "Turks in Libya"
Hello, I recently searched the term "Turks in Libya" in wikipedia, and discovered that the population demographic of Turkish minorities in Libya has been changed. This followed Erdogans speech regarding Libya claiming that Libya has a population of 1 million to 1.4 million Turks. According to a 1936 population study consensus, DNA studies, and population demographics, including being Libyan myself and family taking DNA tests, such claims are an absolute absurdity and a falsehood. I edited the English version of Turks in Libya, and had the dignity of removing this absurd claim that the population was 1 to 1.4 million, and reverted it to 35,000 as per consensus, and added a max 250,000 number as per population growth demographic ( which is an estimate ). The sources stated by the Turkish editors that added the 1 to 1.4 million population are BBC Arabic, A Italian blog (* which stated nothing of the sort by stated that the turk politicans - ie, Faiez Serraj is a Turkman and therefore a Turkish Trojan horse ), does not state anything of the sort regarding population numbers, and the Third source is the Turkish version of the Italian blog. ie, "Trojan horses in Libya". Following these unnacceptable changes, i reverted the population back to what is more likely true and factual rather than a fabrication to justify Turkish expansionism in Libya. https://imgur.com/PzdtrUV

Moreover, I checked the turkish wikipedia version of the article, and for some reason, the article is protected from Editing. https://imgur.com/gO8Xfqa and cannot remove that baseless claim. Here is DNA studies that support my objection: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272186082_Paternal_lineages_in_Libya_inferred_from_Y-chromosome_haplogroups_Paternal_Lineages_in_Libya which clearly identify Libya's population minorities. And clearly shows that the Turkish minority is anything BUT merit of "Third largest population under Berber". Complete farse and absolutely unacceptable statement.

This is the offending turkish article : https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya_T%C3%BCrkleri This entire attempted fabrication and justification for the recent Turkish incursion in our once peaceful country, Libya, is nothing short of an insult and added salt to injury.

Please ammend the turkish Article, and remove the statements "Turkish minority population is the Third largest after berber". Absolutely unacceptable.

Thanks Biomax20 (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * English Wikipedia is not the venue to pursue other project disputes. Praxidicae (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the reply. Where can i get this issue resolved? Thanks. Biomax20 (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I dunno, but I'd guess you'd be better off asking on Turkish Wikipedia. Praxidicae (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:RDIS" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:RDIS. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 4 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Ghinga7 (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Parler
I'm sorry but the way the Parler article/page is being moderated is very biased. All of the sources are opinionated. The first paragraph is a hit piece on the platform with unfounded accusations which appear first with a Google search of the platform. Editing has gone awry because of the obvious endorsement of President Donald Trump, and it is locked but very biased content is locked in. Snyp3r01 (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Request for dispute resolution are made here WP:DRN, given the tone here I would advise against it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of effect of ARBPIA on DR
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard on the issue of the effect of certain restrictions in the ARBPIA decision on Dispute Resolution Noticeboard in specific and on dispute in general. Your input there would be appreciated. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

This policy page has gotten worse over the years
Appears to be totally unmaintained anyway (see above section, for an example). WP:CONTENTDISPUTE is full of grammatical errors, doesn't even match the heading in comparison to WP:RCD, and in general this page has gotten a lot more loaded (and not more helpful) since eg 2006, apparently. Needs a rewrite imo, or just a wholesale revert to an old version. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Status of page: "Wikipedia law" or not?
The url-ending "Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution" indicates that this is not a normal en.wikipedia article, there is however no official 'signage' from Wikimedia Foundation Inc US that this page contains official Wikimedia Foundation Inc (US) policies on dispute resolution. Users are held responsible by the Wikimedia Foundation for all their actions on Wikimedia projects (see Wikimedia Terms of Use). When a serious inner-wikimedia-dispute arises or a user has to deal with litigation by a Wikimedia Foundation or others, IMHO users and Dispute Resolution Officers must be able to find out what is "wikipedia law" and what is not. What is an official 'guideline', 'principle', 'pillar', 'community standard', 'community norm' 'etiquette rule' and what not. Is the ruling Ignore all rules official or not? What is enforceable and what not? Under what circumstances does a WMF think it justified to restrict users in their freedom of expression? The proposal is, to make clear on this page (and all other relevant pages) who is responsible for the published content, c.q. what the status is (legally). The proposal is, WMF US and all official chapters create a platform for official publications on dispute resolution, policies and guidelines. For instance: en.official.wikimedia.org (it.official.wikimedia.org / de.official.wikimedia.org etc). 2001:16B8:115A:2A01:6DD0:CD4D:3CF1:18FD (talk) 07:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * On the project page Please do not bite newcomers is being stated: "The principle ignorantia juris non excusat (Latin for: "ignorance of the law does not excuse") is incompatible with the guidelines of "do not bite" and "assume good faith". In this case, ignorance of Wikipedia's guidelines can or may excuse the mistakes of a newcomer." This means a contrario that from all other users is being expected they know wikipedia law;
 * The Wikipedia Guide to Arbitration states: "Arbitration is not a legal process: With no fixed approaches to problems, all actions, conduct, and relevant evidence may be taken into account." It's of utter importance to show the status of that rule.

Community sanctions
re your reinstatement, I still don't agree and don't think that section should be here. DS/GS is a power for administrators to resolve disputes, not a limitation on editors (give or take some specific page/topic restrictions) - the reports go to exactly the same place (ANI, or to some admin directly), as already described. It's for admins to decide what tools they can use to resolve the issue. 1RR is not mentioned here for same reasons, nor is WP:AE. Whilst, yes, arbitration is mentioned, it's mentioned in the context of "arbitration can resolve a specific dispute", it doesn't mention DS at all. DS, as a power, doesn't resolve any specific dispute, which I imagine is why it isn't mentioned here. The section was unilaterally added apparently for the link to community GS from WP:AE to make sense - I think the template @ AE should be amended then, not that added here.

This page is meant to be useful to people in a specific dispute to have ideas of next steps (the first sentence: This policy describes what to do when you have a dispute with another editor.). Advising people to seek authorisation for topic-wide sanctions doesn't really come into play in these steps, at all. I think it's just confusing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think I have any really strong feeling on it, but it got added here, so maybe someone here will feel more offended by the idea of removal than I am, TBH. --Izno (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, the point isn't offence or not but rather is it helpful to readers who come here for information on dispute resolution? I think the answer to that is a no. Its presence is actually quite illogical. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Seeing the relevance of  reasoning. However - for readers and users coming here to get information on dispute resolution, this page should describe, or link to, all possible sanctions that formally may be imposed by a Wikimedia Foundation and it's representatives to solve or pause content- and conduct disputes. It should list, or link to a list with, the names of functions that have been given certain powers (bureaucrat, administrator, checkuser, rollbacker, oversighter, arbitrator, WMF staffer etc). And this page should describe the possibilities for users to react, including the right to go into court. The title community sanctions could be confusing bc the power of certain users to impose sanctions has most probably not been delegated/mandated to them by the community as a quasi-judicial body, but by a WMF as owner of site and/or as overall content-copyrightholder. 2001:16B8:115A:2A01:6DD0:CD4D:3CF1:18FD (talk) 12:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * IP, WP:NOTCOURT. The purpose of this page is to provide steps on how one can/is expected to resolve disputes they're in. It needs to be fit for that purpose. Not try to do a million different things. What you're suggesting should be another page, try creating your own information page (WP:INFOPAGE). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a court. Wikipedia rule-enforcement certainly is. WikiProject Dispute Resolution certainly is. Dispute resolving officers are appointed to judge. That is the mayor concept of dispute-handling in Wikipedia projects. Thus - the different functions of dispute resolving officers should be mentioned here, the different powers they can have too, short general wording with links to pages that go deeper. Two essential components in the same field, not "a million of different things". Without that no user will understand the system, nor understand what steps can be taken. IP 2001:16B8:115A:2A01:6DD0:CD4D:3CF1:18FD (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC) PS Wikipedia is not: create "your own infopage" (ownership).
 * That's not the point of this page. The policies for enforcement actions are spread across various pages, because they vary depending on the type of action. The point of this policy page is not that. And on parts like And this page should describe the possibilities for users to react, including the right to go into court. Wikipedia doesn't help people sue editors, it blocks them for such threats. WMF is also not the copyright holder for any user-created content on this site. If you want to compile a list of possible sanctions, you can create an information page. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:NEGOTIATE shorcut
I'm going to create a (A) WP:NEGOTIATE page WP:REDIRECTing to Dispute_resolution subsection. Should I call the page that way? Or may be (B) WP:RCDNEGOTIATE? Which is better? -- AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 21:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Dispute_resolution
The editor assistance project seems inactive but is discussed on and linked from this page. Should it be removed? Snuish (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Editor Assistance has new requests and responses added almost every day. Why do you think that it's inactive? Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There are two boxes on the top of the page indicating it may be inactive: Editor_assistance. Snuish (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Manual of Style for Video Games
I have edited a few games listing Xbox Cloud Gaming as a platform, as in the Manual of Style. it says not to include streaming/cloud gaming services as a platform, anyone that can help resolve this across other games would be helpful, thankyou! StarStorm10 (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph
The introduction overly focuses on methods of outside help rather than first working with the other editor; any help on that would be appreciated. Efforts to reduce WP:LAUNDRY in the introduction might also be good. Altanner1991 (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussions for discussion and administrative action review
These processes are often involved in dispute resolution and so should be on the policy page. Thoughts regarding inclusion? Altanner1991 (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Altanner1991, you recently removed the link to Administrative action review from Dispute resolution requests, pointing to this discussion. I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning — could you explain why you made the removal? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 00:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has not been decided on how (or even whether or not) to include the review as dispute resolution, before putting it on the requests page, which is more of a summary. Altanner1991 (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Sea of Faith Article
Dear Editors,

I am the Vice-President of the Sea of Faith in Australia Inc, and a qualified and experienced philosophic historian (over 30 years).

I am happy for a criticism section which takes seriously the technically philosophical arguments, but the comment in the section -- "Alvin Platinga [sic] called the movement 'an amiable sort of dottiness' -- is "academic cursing", plain and simple. Would Plantinga make that comment right in the front of the face of a liberal university scholar. I believe not, as the remark is without critical foundation and is prejudicial. Please remove.

Kind regards, Neville Buch, Historian, MPHA (Qld), Ph.D. (History) UQ., Grad. Dip. Arts (Philosophy) Melb., Grad. Dip. (Education) UQ. 49.191.24.234 (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2023
I think the most recent change by POLNET55 should be reverted.

I assume that POLNET55's edit was in good faith, so it might be nice if someone could help him resolve his dispute with MrOllie? I am however not sure how the issue should be resolved. Big Joenner (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ M.Bitton (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Flemish bend
The image shown in this article, as an example of a Flemish Bend is, in my opinion, dangerously incorrect. It is, in fact, shown tied perfectly, but backwards! The standing part of the ropes need to form the INNER loops of this bend knot, otherwise they can, and will, slip down and jam the knot, when great stress is suddenly applied, (like if you fall off a mountain and the knot catches you)! Instead, if the RUNNING ends of the rope, (which never will receive new tension), are made the outer ones, they are placed correctly. Many people, even experienced climbers, (and even Clifford Ashley), have tied this knot incorrectly, and so the Flemish Bend has gotten an unfair reputation for being hard to untie. Maybe someone could supply a corrected image? (I've never made a correction before, so I don't quite know how this stuff works.) C.F.Beeble (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Mediation
Thoughts on removing the subsection titled "Mediation"? This is very uncommon and I've never seen it used. It also overlaps a bit with WP:DRN, which is already covered in a subsection a bit further down. I would hate to see new users read this page and get advice that is not a current best practice. – Novem Linguae (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)