Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution requests/Archive 1

Archive 1

Anchors

A number of anchors have been stuck in the page, each of which work with the WP:DRR shortcut:

• WP:DRR#FR
• WP:DRR#NEG
• WP:DRR#MED
  • WP:DRR#RFM
• WP:DRR#ARB
  • WP:DRR#RFAR

There are sub-anchors within WP:DRR#NEG (WP:DRR#TP, WP:DRR#TO, WP:DRR#RFC, and WP:DRR#MC) which won't work because they are (for now) in a collapsed div. -Stevertigo 02:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFC/U

This page doesn't refer to WP:RFC/U (and the RFC posting tool doesn't permit it). Rd232 ^talk 12:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Rajesh Khanna

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Active_Banana - this user is continuing his same old story of sites not being relaible and that blogs have been used etc..... yesterday Hebrides (talk) even helped me in converting them to citation format, including the title, publisher, date, etc. even she agrees that the 68 were genuine. now i added up more sources which are yes relaible upto 75 to convince all detractors.. now what needs to be done to ensure that the article contributed by me at present which contains solely and solely facts supported by valid references is being made open to public for reading and not deleted? please help seriously i need ur helpShrik88music (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC) following are the references i provided from reputed magazines,newspapers,websites of tv channels,news channels,articles on filmstars etc,..... i know all my 75 references are valid but do not understand y no action can be taken to make such biased editors away from such articles. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Rajesh_Khanna&oldid=386327270.

I request that this issue be resolves at the earliest and i assure u that all 75 references are genuine.....Shrik88music (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Rajesh Khanna article in wikipedia

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Active_Banana - this user is continuing his same old story of sites not being relaible and that blogs have been used etc..... yesterday Hebrides (talk) even helped me in converting them to citation format, including the title, publisher, date, etc. even she agrees that the 68 were genuine. now i added up more sources which are yes relaible upto 75 to convince all detractors.. now what needs to be done to ensure that the article contributed by me at present which contains solely and solely facts supported by valid references is being made open to public for reading and not deleted? please help seriously i need ur helpShrik88music (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC) following are the references i provided from reputed magazines,newspapers,websites of tv channels,news channels,articles on filmstars etc,..... i know all my 75 references are valid but do not understand y no action can be taken to make such biased editors away from such articles. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Rajesh_Khanna&oldid=387349101

I request that this issue be resolves at the earliest and i assure u that all 78 references are genuine.....

infact i want seniors, experts too see it coz iam sure biased anti khanna fantic fans are deleting scentences..activebanana and shshshs are one of them... infact please u also go thru the article and even u will seee that all sources are magazines,newspapers, websites of news channels etc... reply in my page..Shrik88music (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Correction: I did not “agree that 68 references were genuine” as stated above. I simply ran Reflinks on them. Thank you. — Hebrides (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Can an editor revert a dispute tag

There is a dispute on a page and two editors have placed a {{disputed}}tag but is being reverted by another editor on the grounds that there is no dispute. Can an editor revert a disputed tag? The strange thing is that there are not only disputes on the talk page about contents but also a dispute about whether dispute tag should be placed. I'd be glad to know the rule position on this one. AshLin (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any rule about it. You can try asking an admin for a third opinion, I suppose.--Kotniski (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Cricket 1728

User Blackjack refuses to alter an error on cricket 1728. This is it seems to me for 2 reasons. 1)He has become precious about these pages are fiercely disputes updates. Having been told a new book - From Commons to Lords had been published containing all newspaper references he first - disputed the existence of the book - second told everyone he had heard of it now - Three bought it and said he, as if he was the main authority, would analyse it - Fourth, decided it was OK - However Blackjack only had Vol.1 and Vol 2 on page 256 corrected a long standing error about a cricket match played in 1728. I provided blackjack with the newspaper reference however he refuses to allow it to be altered and seems to have a group of chums who protect him.
2)Blackjack uses as a reference his own site - From Lads to Lords. All experts in the area(and I can supply names and pack drill) agree that this site is weak and error riddled where it is not plain plagiarism. On it BJ propogates his own theories and nice though these may be, they are to many experts - unsubstantiated nonsense. Also - should he be referring to the site as it is his own much less using it as an authority.
Blackjack constantly reverts all edits claiming them to be work of the so called troll RichardDaft. It is worth noting that BJ has launched offensive campaigns under his own 'trolls' such as JamesJJames and at least five others. WP is an open source and it needs to be accurate. The whole subject of 18th century cricket has been taken over by BJ. That would be fine if he were a reliable chronicler. He is not, and his copiously compiled pages contain many errors, endless POV and worse, he refuses to allow any alteration, ranting and raving(and I mean ranting and raving) that he knows best andhe is supported by people such as Dweller and AssociatAffiliate who can provide no substantiation for BJ's flights of fancy. It is fine to have a project on cricket, but there are glaring errors which could easily be altered and properly referenced if BJ was not one of Mr Dylan's famous SOP. DR TM Asquith writing as Fullersomething (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Fullersomething was subject to indef block yesterday as an known troll who has disrupted the site for four years. Please refer to User:MuZemike for reasons. For case information see both Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Known_troll_posing_as_a_real_person and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft. For a history of this troll's campaign, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft/Archive.

In addition to producing the above missive, the troll concurrently created five other accounts and used one to impersonate a real person with a view towards persuading members of WP:CRIC to support his version of events; he used the others to create and populate an article that seriously breached WP:BLP and had to be speedily deleted. All six accounts were blocked indefinitely and, via the WP:DUCK test, were associated with the Daft SPI.

I suggest that the above request is removed so that it doesn't waste anyone else's time. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 11:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

WQA may close

There is a proposal at the Village Pump to close the Wikiquette page. The consensus appears to be moving in favor of closing, but the discussion is still on-going. If it were closed, this project page would need to be modified to remove WQA and perhaps replace it with something (perhaps a link to Dispute Resolution process or Third Opinion because the latter may take on much of the workload). Please comment at the Village Pump discussion (not here, so the talk is colocated) if you have any thoughts. --Noleander (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

resolved

Issue #3 settled, sorry I botched the page 10:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Reordering and revisions of DRN options

Copy of discussion from DRN subpage (talk):[1]

I like the graphics and choices at the top of the page but....... I think they should be reordered. A lot of newbies come here and the current will leave many to believe that after 3rd opinion the next step is DRN and then mediation. I think we should reorder and encourage editors to take advantage of the noticeboards and RfC before coming to DRN and mediation. Here is my preferred order:

Third Opinion, Specialized Noticeboards, RfC DRN, Mediation, Arbitration

Comments? Suggestions? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

IMO, Your revised order is an improvement. That being said, I think that we are making a mistake by sticking together four venues that only deal with content disputes, one that only deals with user conduct issues, and one that is a collection of both kinds of DR. I would like to see two tables, one for each type of DR. The second table should be in this order: conduct noticeboards such as SPI and 3RRNB, ANI, RFC/U, Arbcom. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Guy, I agree. Pages like these are used often by newbies and so everything needs to be simple and clear. As you say, mixing content and conduct dispute venues will be confusing for many and may only further their frustration borne of the ongoing dispute. I like your suggestions for a more clear and comprehensive organization.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I support Guy's idea. ANI should definitely be up there because no behavioral conduct resolution is there now. I'll see you guys around DRN on Saturday, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 19:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC) Go ahead, revise it. This was meant to turn into something more full-on but didn't really come of anything :) Steven Zhang (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

OK I've reordered the icons in the template according to my proposal and the consensus above. I've also made a new template for "user conduct" forums that I'd like to get consensus for. Please join the discussion on the main page here. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I've done some reordering and upgrading of the icons on the page per the consensus above. NOTE: the Arbitration option has been moved to the 'conduct' list of DR options which is proposed below-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to propose an additional template be added to this page per the consensus above. It applies specifically to CONDUCT dispute resolution. Can you please look at it here and give some feedback? Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon, User:Steven Zhang, User:MrScorch6200 and User:TransporterMan, Any comments or feedback on the changes I've made to this page AND the new template I've proposed above and can be seen here ?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey Keithbob. Both templates look good, though I'd probably suggest a different image for DRN and Arbitration. I'm nitpicking though. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm open to suggestions on the images. I looked at several hundred images in WikimediaCommons and came up with these choices (see sandbox).What images do you think would be better for DRN and Arbcom? (Note: the current ArbCom image of white court-like building actually says Arbitration Committee on it -- if you enlarge it-- but that doesn't mean we couldn't change it.). -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@Keithbob: I like the reorganization of DRR page. For the DRR (conduct) I think ANI and Sockpuppet Investigations should switch place. Also, they both have the same shortcut; we should just place both templates on a single page. It's good to be around again, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 03:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I like the content page reorg, too; the conduct page is already good for the basic places to go, but could arguably have AIV and UAA added to it and Arb might be best split out into RFAR and AE (and should AN be there since it's the proper venue for ban proposals?). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Excellent comments, I'll try to carve out some time to work on this.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Request

Can someone better at deciphering table markup than me please remove the RFC/U info? Unless there's a good reason why we want to point users to a deprecated process? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:  Done —Darkwind (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

how does one use DR in a dispute with an abusive admin?

I recently have run afoul of an administrator who I consider misusing his tools and abusive. I have arrived here seeking solutions where i could lodge a complaint hoping his administrative action could be evaluated and a solution like desysopping could be considered if appropriate. There seems to be a lack of instructions discussing how to bring a request to desysop an administrator here despite several pages indicating such a request ought to be brought here first. Could someone provide me guidance how such a request be initiated and processed? Thank you. JackTheVicar (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Note that this editor's conduct, as well as their block (and subsequent unblock) are currently under discussion at ANI. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The process always begins by filing a complaint at ANI. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Dispute Re: Bartercard Debt - Account: 1178719

This page is only for discussion of how to improve the Dispute resolution requests page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 05:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

To whom it may concern, This BarterCard account has been considered null and void as of December 29 2013 due to misleading procedures during and after the application process and the unwillingness of staff to try reach resolutions to my concerns. Any fees charged to account had been cut as losses and ASB agreeed on the termination of BarterCards direct debit. From this stage I have considered BarterCard as a company I want nothing to do and refuse to participate with as I believe they use deceptive business tactics which undermine legal tender and leads to immoral practices at many levels of their scheme. Management of the BarterCard syndicate I have dealt with have been unhelpful to my business, evasive and unreasonable in my attempts to resolve my concerns and misleading about the terms of the membership contract. They have been consistently unwilling to reach closure on the matter with me directly and unwilling to reach a fair resolution and leave me with the only option to involve 3rd parties to resolve this issue. Their disputes resolution team failed to contact me back and I do not wish to go through the disputes tribunal if possible. All I want and my only intention for my statement is for BarterCard to close account immediately, the letters to stop being sent to me, the direct debt stopped being charged to my account, for them and their 3rd parties to stop harassing me and the ridiculous NZD$2996.35 fee waived. During the induction process, high-pressure sales techniques are used and details of the contract are unclear, withheld, highly complex and easily misunderstood. The 5 face-to-face meetings I attended during the induction process was lengthy complex and unfair, with staff making promises that were never kept and constantly assuring me my venture would be beneficial regardless of my questions about any fees. From that stage I had made it clear that I was unwilling to join if there were any fees. I was assured by Adam Frisby and Tracey Spray in face-to-face meetings that there were no fees and on the contract did not tick the box which mentions the fees and I was told at the meeting to ignore it, followed swiftly by another page of their; around 30 page new membership pack. A month after joining I received my first letter which included fees that I was unaware I would receive, I immediately called Adam Frisby my "trade-broker" from BarterCard for an explanation about what these fees were, after lengthy discussion I decided to request account closure after realising that it wasn't what I signed up for and after promises were already broken. This request was ignored and put off with more assurances of the "benefits" and the profit I would make back by being part of their scheme. I was encouraged by the trade-brokers plead that it was only a month in and we had only finished doing the directory listing and write up and that it will improve so just "give it a chance". During my time with BarterCard I had been contacted to participate more in their scheme if I am to make it work; which I obliged to. I attended 2 trade shows, and made 2 purchases and did a couple of jobs through them; which included purchasing business cards (which isn't even shown on the BarterCard account, and were more expensive, harder to find and lesser quality than my usual printer) *see attached email conversation, I purchased 1 coffee the only actual transaction I made with my BarterCard Card. *see attached a complete copy of my statement from my time with BarterCard. The membership fee that appears in the statement I had no part in and had no choice or decision in that matter, this transaction was completed by BarterCard staff from which at that stage staff continued to inform me that there were no fees despite my continual questioning. They returned to tell me that they had discussed with their manager about deducting any fees from the BarterCard scheme, plus more assurance about their benefits. The time it took to do anything through BarterCard always took much longer than my standard practices for business transactions, it involved more communication, more systems I couldn't understand, complicated scenarios and more fees. I essentially could not see how BarterCard was of benefit to me, I discussed this with my "Trade-Broker" who again assured me of the benefits and encouraged me to spend more Trade$ whilst disregarding my concerns. I attempted again more vigilantly to have my account closed, I was met with the comment that BarterCard is generally a life membership. I continued to press for my account to be closed week after week and was eventually put through to Dale Chetty. Dale informed me that I can have my account closed as long as the difference of "account credit" (all in T$) to be paid back in NZD legal tender. To my astonishment it was going to cost me NZD $2397.08 to terminate this account. I met with ASB as a last resort due to BarterCards unwillingness to hear me out to discuss this ongoing issue that I could not afford and BarterCards ruthless direct debit that I had no control over and had it bounced. My personal banker Shelley who backed my case has informed me of BarterCards continual attempt to remove funds but their block will not allow it to be processed. I tried to negotiate and come to closure with Dale to no success. From this stage account is considered null and void. All letters destroyed and all participation ceased. I have asked Dale, Adam, and atleast 3 other staff at BarterCard to forward me onto one of the board of directors or a CEO to discuss my matter with someone else and have been continuously declined. The board of directors are hard to contact, hard to find information on, and from what it appears, in many legal disputes with their international companies. I have talked to the Commerce Commission, Citizens Advice Bureau, lawyers, Ombudsman, other BarterCard members, friends and family about my situation and my experience with BarterCard. I don't wish to involve any 3rd parties to reach a resolution as I believe it shouldn't be possible that such immoral business practice be allowed to function within New Zealand, nor do I wish to take this to the disputes tribunal or court and don't believe I should need to, I do not wish to go through the lengthy process of a legal dispute and hope for all parties involved to look at what BarterCard is putting me through despite my continual attempts to reach a resolution, what they have promised me, not followed through on, and what I have got from BarterCard and weigh up the fairness of my simple request for Dale to have my account closed at no cost and no further action. Would anyone consider an account closure should cost NZD $2996.35 and if not paid within 2 days the only option be a legal dispute through the NZ Disputes Tribunal? Is this fair or reasonable? Given my actions, requests and experience with this scheme should I not be the one making a case against BarterCard? Cutting my losses and considering my account null and void has been my most considerate option in my case against BarterCard. If action is to be taken against me, I will continue to fight and will be taking further action against BarterCard. $2996.35 for a coffee paid in T$, account closure and a service which did not serve me should not be a matter to waste court time. This is injustice and sleazy business tactics at its worst. A comprehensive investigation into the agreements, induction process, IPO, structure, processes and ethics of Bartercard is being carried out and is encouraged for all other parties interested in this case to also do so for proper understanding of how the BarterCard scheme works. Investigation should include historic research, statistics, feedback from members, feedback from staff, feedback from investors, information on the Board of Directors, business values, business transparency and this information should be brought into light to public and its members. BarterCard seems to me as an attempt to undermine the NZD with their T$ claiming the value as 1NZD to 1T$ which is untrue from my experience and my discussions with other members and the scheme investigated by reputable financial professionals and IRD. I refuse to provide BarterCard any real legal tender to support what I believe is an illegal business. It seems the T$ also experiences inflation due to the fact of the difficulty to find or make any worth-while purchases with their T$. I feel that IRD should also be making an investigation into BarterCard NZ from its deceptive business practice and cunning accounts and sales techniques, this experience makes me wonder how much they are taking from our NZD to feed the people that support the private T$ economy. All the details to do with the way the business works and their values are unclear and deceptive in their appearance. I refuse to participate with these criminals. IRD should be very interested in knowing what BarterCards T$ currency deficit is. As a sole-trader performing as a magician, I use deceptive techniques in my act for entertainment purposes and am an expert at analysing deception, illusions, misdirection and psychology. It may be why it has only been me and a few others that can see through Bartercards deceptive purposes to mass profit for their own personal gain at the expense of our economy, people like me and our values. This company should not be allowed to exist within NZ, though may expose weaknesses within NZ laws that allow BarterCard to operate. Investigation should proceed. I will consider making a claim against BarterCard if closure is not met immediately. I may also seek compensation for losses and grievance. Find attached a current and cancelled copy of "Re: Account Number - Account Closure Balance." This email is provided on request of the parties that I have spoken to, please CC me in with any updates. Much more information about BarterCard and their unethical practices can be provided upon request. Faithfully, On 14 December 2015 at 10:34, <collections@eccreditcontrol.com> wrote: DEBT OWED TO: BarterCard Exchange Ltd ACCOUNT NO: TOTAL DUE: $2,996.35 Dear Joseph, Please find attached the proof of debt that you requested. Your account has now been reactivated and we will be proceeding as previously advised. You are required to make payment in full within 2 working days of the date of this email. If you are unable to make payment in full to the bank account below you are required to make contact with this office on 0800 269 322 within 2 working days of the date of this email to organise a payment plan that will clear this account in an acceptable time frame. Bank account details are as follows: Bank: BNZ Account Name: EC Credit Control (NZ) Ltd Account Number: Your Reference: Yours sincerely, Channel Overend | Corporate Credit Controller | collections@eccreditcontrol.com |

Please rectify the map of India

Why the map of India is not shown properly? the part of J&K shown as a part of Pakistan which is actually a part of India and a conflict zone between the two country. please rectify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.17.137.4 (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism report

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Anmolbhat

Has been repeatedly adding biased and unconfirmed info the the career se ction of KSHMR, changing descriptions to discredit some of kshmrs collaborators as having no involvement in their songs. Please investigate immediately. This vandalism is not only based off of mere rumours byt could also be damaging to the reputation of DVBBS, and other collaborating artists discredited in the edits. Thank you for your time. Amy wamey (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

User has had this explained to them at my talk page, at AIV's talk page, at Anmolbhat's talk page, and their own user page talk already. -- ferret (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Big Fish Games is a social gaming company not a computer gaming company

Collapse off topic. This page is for making improvements to the page to which it is attached, not for making dispute resolution requests. Since yours isn't even a dispute resolution request, make your request here.— TransporterMan (TALK) 18:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
the mobile games, casino games and PC games library for this publisher create a social games business not a computer games business. can this be changed?

Vandalism

There is continued vandalism on this page; IP editors are constantly blanking the page without reason. I'd like to propose an enhancement of the protection policy on this pageBibliac (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Accessibility

A screen reader will in many cases stop reading when it reaches each <br />, requiring the user to move forward to the next line manually.--Moxy 🍁 01:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)