Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution

NOTE: This is not the place to post notices of disputes, questions about particular articles, or requests for assistance. Posts that are not a discussion of the project page Wikipedia:Resolving disputes will simply be removed. Please follow Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2: Nov 2005–Oct 2006 Archive 3: Nov 2006–Aug 2007

Conflict resolution flow chart

Hopefully everyone does this.

Hello, I created this flow chart for flow chart and thought it might also come in useful here. Since this is an official policy page I am putting it here for incorporation by the larger community if they feel it is justified. Triddle 08:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this! I just came here to write that I find the sequence provided has some major flaws, and your chart offers a refreshing alternative. It's a pity no one has started discussing it yet. Well, let's begin, then. (Disclaimer: My comments are mostly based on mediating in ethnic conflicts, so they may not apply to all conflicts.)

1. Design: I would prefer if you did not break up the arrows with "yes" and "no". This makes the chart appear more complicated than it is.
2. I love the first question "can you stay cool?" - it really gives people a choice and takes them by their pride. When you just tell people, as this page currently does, you have to take a break first, they feel only pressured. Most people who go to mediation do not have the mindset for a break at all.
3. "Shower them with Wikilove": I think this is way over the top. I would be so happy if everybody who reaches mediation were just willing to cooperate. I think this is the right moment for the box "Try to form a consensus on the talk page".
4. sock puppets: Cut this decision. People who are familiar with Wikipedia will know it already, and newbies don't need to worry about this. — Sebastian 05:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) It's a pity there seems to be nobody who wants to talk about what sequence we should recommend. I thought a bit more about it. Here's a table of the sequence I would prefer. Final stages have a yellow background, as in the flow chart above:

#	Question	If Yes ...	If No ...
1	Can you stay cool?	Try to form a consensus on the talk page	Disengage for a while
2	Has a consensus been formed?	Success!	-> line 3
3	Are they being disruptive?	hand over to WP:AN	Choose between one of the options of step 3 or "further steps"

Merge Step 3 and Further dispute resolution

In this edit, the "Editor assistance" section was moved up because the editor felt that "this is something to consider before further dispute resolution ..." I subsequently renamed that step to "Third step: Bring in an outside editor".

However, I now realize that these two changes don't make sense. Section "Further dispute resolution" contains a subsection "Discuss with third parties". There is no real difference between bringing in an outside editor and discussing with third parties, in particular, as the latter contains such processes as Request for Comment. Is there any consensus for telling people they need to ask for Editor assistance before they can consider options like Requests for comment or MedCab? — Sebastian 09:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge part of Avoidance section into Step 1

Not only does Avoidance include "discuss it on the talk page", it even contains several instructions for how to talk. Is there any reason to keeping this in a separate section? — Sebastian 19:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I also propose to delete the advice "Be respectful to others and their points of view". I can't imagine anyone coming to this page to decide if they should or should not be respectful to the other party. More likely, this well-intended finger-wagging will backfire: From the reader's perspective, it naturally will point right at the other party as per Matthew 7:3. — Sebastian 20:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Carrying out proposed changes and more

I now carried out the changes as proposed above. While I was doing so, it became a bigger endeavour than I had anticipated. There was some redundancy in the existing text; and some topics were scattered haphazardly over several sections.

Above all, I rearranged the first few steps and numbered all but the last from 1 through 6. Maybe step 1 and 2 should be swapped, but I didn't dare to go so far without a discussion, and I can think of some good reasons not to do that. I did, however, put the truce in a step of its own because the current text clearly specified that it needs to come before asking others. Maybe we could include that in step 4.

Most of my wording changes were in the first 2 steps and the first paragraph of step 3. The only changes in the other steps that might affect the policy are:

• split up Ask ... into "Ask about the subject" and "Ask about a policy" because they have little more to do with each other than with the other options.
• Regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject, I added "Usually, such projects are listed on top of the article talk page."
• Moved formal mediation up so it's now next to informal med.

I deleted the following non-trivial or not obviously redundant texts:

• "Avoid going back to the page of dispute. Respond to questions about it on your user talk page and direct the questioner to take their issues to the article talk page to keep all relevant discussion in one place." This conflicted with the text "The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page, you may even post the proposed content on the talk page. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question. Never carry on a dispute on the article page itself.", and in my experience, it doesn't make a significant difference on which talk page the discussion takes place. (Except, of course, if the page is mediated.)
• "Wikipedia works by building consensus. To develop a consensus on a disputed topic, you may need to expose the issue to a larger audience." This is mostly redundant with the text "If talking to the other parties involved and taking a break fails, you should try one of the following methods to resolve the dispute. Which ones you choose and in what order will depend on the nature of the dispute, and the preferences of people involved.". The link to consensus is nice, but not as important as the link to WP:NPOV, which is already in the intro.
• Deleted link to Wikipedia:Protection policy from "see also". We already have a link to WP:RFPP, which I think is more helpful to someone who is in a panic. That page of course links to Wikipedia:Protection policy in its intro.

I hope that I was able to make this page clearer and that it now more straightforwardly addresses editors who are often under particularly heavy stress and may not have the patience to read the whole policy. Overall, I took care not to delete anything that is a policy; other than the link to WP:PROT I did not delete any links to policies or guidelines but rather inserted new ones where appropriate. — Sebastian 00:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Truce

The wording was "If you have not agreed to a truce before this point, you should do so now." I had shortened this to "Negotiate a truce - see Wikipedia:Truce", but I now realize that it now clearly states that it's part of the policy, where before, it was fuzzy. (I find the word "should" should not be used in a policy. It doesn't clearly say if it is necessary or not and doesn't offer any criteria. Hence, it leaves this decision entirely up to how much an editor responds to a guilt trip.) Because Wikipedia:Truce is not a policy, I assume it was meant as a recommendation and tone it down to "Consider negotiating a truce". — Sebastian 01:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Community enforced mediation

Can we add WP:CEM? We could just use their first paragraph, or does someone have a better idea? — Sebastian 05:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think WP:CEM should be added, but perhaps with a succinct and clearer description of what it is and how it differs from other available means for mediation. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

How is this for a possible draft?

"Where content disputes arise between experienced editors with opposing and strongly held viewpoints, it can become very difficult to keep a balanced perspective and hold on to an assumption of good faith. The quality of the debate can quickly descend into personal attacks. If a pair of editors tend to find themselves treading down that path and want outside help to do so, they can pursue an “enforced truce” by means of Community enforceable mediation. In the WP:CEM process, the editors themselves, with the assistance of a mediator, formulate an agreement regarding the norms to which they wish themselves to adhere with community help. It can cover editing behaviors or how they will agree to treat controversial material. The benefit is that the editors themselves work out how they want to deal with their issues, rather than having “time-outs” or other penalties imposed upon them."

I'm thinking it might best be added to the end of the Discussion (Step 4) section since it's more focused on working things out between editors than with outside help (just outside enforcement). Askari Mark (Talk) 23:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Mediation or Arbitration

There needs to be a clear distinction made between Mediation and Arbitration. At one stage, I was advised to go to Mediation for problems with an editor. I did so but after a while I was finally informed that Mediation doesn't cover disputes on user conduct. It covers disputes about article content.

The dispute resolution page gives a clear impression that the process goes through Mediation and then up to Arbitration, but this is wrong. The text should state clearly that:

1. disputes about article content go to Mediation

2. disputes about user conduct go to Arbitration.

Sardaka (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're quite right. Something's been bothering me about this at the back of my head, and you've put your finger on it. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not it. We would prefer people using other methods from this page before requesting arbitration. Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Scope says:

Where a dispute has not gone through mediation, or the earlier steps in the dispute resolution process, the Arbitrators may refer the dispute to the Mediation Committee if it believes mediation is likely to help.

Step 6 lists several methods to apply when you have problems with other editors:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on users
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts
• Asking about a policy
• Community enforced mediation also allows user issues, although this isn't included in the list yet.

What's bothering me - and this may be the same that's bothering you - is that the user has to make a complicated choice with little information. If even we don't readily see such an important criterium as where to go to complain about what then it's certainly too complicated. BTW, that's why I proposed creating a generalized emergency page WP:911 this morning here. — Sebastian 06:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If "community enforced mediation also allows user issues", what is the procedure for this?

The above statement "Where a dispute has not gone through mediation etc etc," doesn't seem to help much, since other statements make it clear that requests have to go through the normal channels, RfC etc. Scope makes it clear that Arbitration covers disputes between editors, not article content issues.

In any case, the Dis. Res. page does nothing to make this clear. "If Arbitrators may refer a dispute to the Mediation Committee" -- if this is the case, it isn't spelled out on the Dis.Res. page. Regardless of what the Arbitrators may do, the fact is that we are expected to go through normal channels first, but they don't make it clear that mediation is normally for content and Arbitration is for conduct. These things should be spelled out clearly on the page. I was told to go to MedCab and then waited ten weeks for a verdict before someone finally told me that MedCab isn't for disputes like that, so I just wasted ten weeks.

Sardaka (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm very sorry that you had this disappoinment with MedCab. I would like to talk more about this with you. Would you like to bring it up on Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal or would you rather send me e-mail?

Re content vs conduct: This was never explicitly decided. It's just that some mediators feel that way, but we don't have a fix rule, and I don't think we should. I could bring it up on our talk page. If some mediators feel that way, they just don't have to accept such cases. I personally don't have any problems taking a personal case. My guess is that people may feel that other methods, such as the ones I listed above, are more effective. But if that's the case then we should make this clear on this page, WP:DR, and not come up with a halfhearted rule on MedCab.

With regard to "If Arbitrators may refer a dispute to the Mediation Committee": Do I understand you correctly that you feel it should be spelled out? Why? — Sebastian 11:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

For the procedures of community enforced mediation, please see WP:CEM or ask people there. — Sebastian 11:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I would think it's obvious that these things should be spelled out clearly on DR, to stop people wasting their time, like I wasted my time, and not go round in circles etc. Your above comments may all be accurate, but they don't help people if they are not spelled out clearly on the page.

The statement about arbitrators referring a case to mediation if it hasn't gone through the early stages seems to be circular, ie how do you get to the arbitrators in the first place if you haven't gone through the early stages?

I agree that the way it is at the moment is too complicated, and things need to be spelled out better. As it is at the moment, there's nothing to stop people from having my experience, because nothing is explained clearly.

DR at the moment says that Rfc is the normal way to go, and Wikiquette Alerts are only for uncivil editors.

(I will talk to you directly about my experience.)

Sardaka (talk) 12:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that what is needed is explanation in a few stages, eg:

A. an outline of the informal options like, Wikiquette, AN/I, Village pump etc.

If this is not enough, go to:

B. Mediation if the dispute is about article content,

OR

C. Arbitration (preceded by RfC) if the dispute is about user conduct.

Then maybe people won't go up the garden path like I did.

Sardaka (talk) 10:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

RFC/U is disputed.

Please see WP:VPP#WP:RFC/U - time to get rid of it?. Will ^(talk) 18:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

General conflict resolution question

I have a general question regarding the conflict resolution steps. I'll phrase this question as a hypothetical even though it is based on an actual case. Suppose a dispute involves applicability to a particular case of some basic WP policies, such as WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Suppose that, in the view of one of the parties, the other party's edit represent a very clear violation of these policies, but that neither party is willing to yield or change their mind.

Does it make sense to request mediation (formal or informal) in this case? Or should one try to proceed to arbitration right away? Or is there some other quick way to deal with a particularly clear case of a WP policy violation? I'd appreciate any advice from experienced editors. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Step 6: Turn to others for help

Step 6 seems to disagree with this other article: Wikipedia:Canvassing#Forum shopping. Which is true? --Chuck Marean 11:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:MEDCAB & WP:3O streamlining

After discussion with many people off wiki about this subject i felt it would be a good idea to see if there is widespread consensus for this to happen. These two methods of dispute resolution are similar but differ mainly in that 3O deals with disputes between two editors and MEBCAB deals with multiple editors. I felt that the referral between these two groups should be streamlined to allow quicker referral from one to the other. Although this does exist in the form or a suggestion on the WP:3O page and there is no such suggestion on the MEDCAB page. What i am proposing is a direct referral process, so that what multi party disputes posted at WP:3O can be quickly and efficiently be passed on to WP:MEDCAB and vice versa with regards to 2 party disputes. Given that most content disputes 99.99% of the time have to go through MEDCAB before going on to MEDCOM it seems a sensible idea. This could happen by the referral by the cabalists and 3O contributers themselves with a message on the parties concerned informing them of the referral. Seddon69 (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC) _{message also posted at MEDCAB and 3O}

No Original Research / Noticeboard

I just added WP:NOR/N to the list of noticeboards; I hope no one objects. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What If None of the Steps of Dispute Resolution Work?

What happens when dispute resolution doesn't work? You try all the steps about content, and nothing is different at the end than at the beginning. Arbitration is only for conduct issues. Wikipedia seems to only enforce policies about conduct; policies about content are not enforced. Life.temp (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the cause of the content issue. If you believe that someone is adding information to Wikipedia that is factually incorrect, then that's a conduct issue, as an editor is violating WP:V. If they're adding information that gives undue weight to a particular viewpoint, such that the article violates Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, then again, that's a conduct issue (an editor is violating the neutrality policy). You're right though that it's usually easier to enforce policies about conduct (incivility, disruption), than neutrality. But ultimately, any content is added to Wikipedia by one or more editors, and if they are violating policies, then that's Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, which can be dealt with, either by blocking the editor that's doing it, or possibly requesting a community ban which prevents them from editing in certain topic areas. In order to really deal with an editor who is inserting bad content though, you need to have other editors who agree with you that the content is bad. If other editors look at the situation, and their opinion is, "Well, the editor is using reliable sources, they're interpreting them properly, they're not violating neutrality, they're explaining controversial edits, and they're participating in discussion with other editors in a civil and collegial way to ensure that the article properly reflects consensus", then there's probably not a conduct issue. In such a case, if you still disagree with content, your best option is to expand the article to include an alternate point of view, to ensure that you are basing your own information on reliable sources, and to articulate your concerns at the relevant talkpage. See also Dealing with disruptive editors.

Bottom line: It depends.  :) If you can provide more specific examples though, especially to articulate what the exact problem is, and which steps in Dispute Resolution that you tried, we can give more specific advice. --Elonka 15:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think violating neutrality or verifiability, etc. is a conduct issue. If you go to ANI with complaints about that, they will tell you admins don't resolve disputes about content. In practice, content issues are converted into conduct issues is through edit warring. At that point, "the authorities" get involved, but that's not really a resolution to a disgreement over content, per se. The specific example that has led me to this topic is my attempt at dispute resolution in the anti-Americanism article. It is about to be rejected for formal mediation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Anti-Americanism. In other words, the last step has been tried, and the article as it stand violates many policies about neutrality and original research. Life.temp (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on the basic point. Elonka says above you need other editors who agree with you, & my experience of both placing & responding to RfCs is that hardly anyone responds. See also Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard & Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Procedure for more discussion around this point. Peter jackson (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I have made a page that discusses further methods in case arbitration is not satisfactory. See Wikipedia:WikiWar. Jdrrmk (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The question is a good one. I have recently been involved in a long-running dispute over content that has reached a point now where, essentially, everyone has agreed to take a break. There is no resolution and the debate will flair up again all too soon. The dispute was taken to ArbCom, where one side was accused of gaming the system, but this is exceptionally hard to prove and the case was rejected as content dispute. This is not the place to rehash those arguments, but this has highlighted a "hole" (as an ArbCom member put it) in the dispute resolution process. In this instance, one side believes that there is an issue of neutrality; the other side believes that there was no such issue. As simple as that sounds, it was the core of the debate. In such a case, there will never be agreement unless it can be looked at by some non-partisan third party, and such a third party has some power to impose a solution in a similar way to ArbCom. Informal mediation simply does not work, because there is no way to mediate between "there is a problem" and "there is no problem".--FimusTauri (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

So what do we do about it? Do we give ArbCom or some similar body the power to resolve content disputes? Do we introduce a system of automatically notifying all account holders of all RfCs & hope enough people turn up & they're mostly unbiased? Sheer numbers of members give Wikpedia enormous inertia. It would be difficult to get fundamental changes made. Perhaps we should just give up & let propagandists censor & falsify WP to their hearts' content. It would soon be totally discredited & we could start again. Peter jackson (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Something has to be done. In the light of that ArbCom decision I did have some thoughts about a possible alternative procedure. I have no idea if it would work, but I have put a rough draft here for consideration.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution viewed as 'optional'

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:AN_is_not_a_step_in_dispute_resolution seems to indicate that some administrators view Dispute Resolution as "optional" and that they can take "alternative" steps if they want to.

Perhaps some more explicit language needs to be added stating that all editors and administrators are expected to follow Dispute Resolution? --Barberio (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Mechanism for getting help with complex disputes?

It seems to me that none of the current options really offer a good way to resolve a complex dispute regarding article content. At the Village Pump, I have suggested an option for doing so. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have begun a draft of a page which could host such a process. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Steal your shortcut?

Resolved

wp:avoid currently redirects to a section of this page, but it has rarely been used for this purpose; I see 6 links at the "whatlinkshere" page, almost all of them to archives. Someone took WP:AVOID for WP:Words to avoid; my guess is that's the page that would leap to mind when people see WP:AVOID, but I don't have any strong feelings about it, if someone here wants to keep the shortcut for this page. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

About changes

I've rewritten the first three sections - I do not believe I've changed their message; I am hoping I cleared up some of the clutter to let the spirit of DR through. Brevity is clarity, imo :-)

I'll continue later, but I'm taking a break since some folks might disagree and I'd rather not have everything rolled back ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, you did indeed not change the message, and introduced many good improvements of brevity. I have two questions:

• You removed a number of links to policies, such as to WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. I can imagine that you did that to remove clutter, but I feel these links empower readers to read more about a topic that may be pertinent to their problem.
• You removed the sentence "Always explain your changes, especially when you want other people to agree with you." I assume you felt it was already expressed by "it's good style to explain why you made your changes". But I feel it's not the same: The latter is just the usual moral fingerpointing "Be nice and do as we tell you!". Who wants to read that?! By contrast, the former appeals to wiles: It gives the reader a tip that makes it worthwhile reading. Actually, I would like the whole policy be written with that in mind, but I'm not so good at it. — Sebastian 06:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at those policies, dude? ;-) They turned from a basic position in our encyclopedia to a massive beaning. The last thing I want is for people to start conflating common sense with undue officiousness. If someone is approaching DR, they probably know what NPOV is, and the part about RS is a bridge they can cross when they come to it (I'm a coordinator for medcab, btw; I don't mean to show off my creds, but please understand that I have a good idea now of what works and what is failing... I'm sure you did (and still do) when you were the coordinator)

As for the change in wording, I felt the former sentence didn't make much sense (you only explain your changes to get people to agree with you). You're probably right about the second sentence.

Help me out here :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 06:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

And for a quick elaboration on removing the policy links: it's almost universally better to have someone explain these things to you than read it from the policy page. I don't even pipe NPOV anymore. It's just not helpful anymore. Better they come to us (medcabalists, etc) and have it explained. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I haven't looked at most of these pages in over a year. I just took them for granted. Maybe they have changed; I've seen a lot of instruction creep here lately. Still, I would prefer if we kept our policies clean, instead of hiding them as if we were ashamed of them. I don't see how these core policies can be used for beaning; would you have an example for that? (I am aware that AGF is often used as a weapon, as when a POV pusher templated me with the AGF template just for asking politely them why they did a certain edit.)

About the especially: I guess there was a grain of irony in that. How about if we replace it with "because"? — Sebastian 07:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Still, I would prefer if we kept our policies clean," - precisely why I removed the links. They can go back in, but it just adds to the confusion. I'm really trying to dig DR out of a hole. As for the beaning aspects, it's more of a counter-beaning since they explicitly say you can't do this or that, despite cause (IAR, common sense, etc) to do so, which causes a boatload of problems (re: UNDUE esp.) In other words, I am ashamed of them; I'll get around to editing them (like pulling teeth), but for the moment I just want DR to be clean, heaven-forbid any policy page is :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC) I'll re-add the text :-D

On the pyramid,

can someone see the difference between the 1st 3 points? I don't see any (other than the 1st not describing the process of providing arguments). Scepegoet (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This pyramid is an illustration of http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are referring to the top three layers of the pyramid. If that's so, then they are explained in the sections DH4 through DH6 on that page. However, to be honest, that explanation has its problems, too. Some of the text of these sections only clouds the distinction. E.g. "correcting someone's grammar" is typical for level DH2. Using that in the description of DH6 makes it sound like DH6 is just a notch above DH2. — Sebastian 20:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:List_of_policies#Suggestions

I'm suggesting moving this page to the behavioral policy cat. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 05:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I as a human being cannot see how anyone who claims to care about the truth and humanity can be neutral about this article and Khodorkovsky.I suggest that there should be a soundoff section and worldwide rejection of Russian policy. [jchip1@live.com] February 14 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.252.92.159 (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

How to restore the article?

Please restore the article Our "Lady of Lourdes". This article is vandalised and made blank by the user "194.83.245.89". I tried to restore it but nothing can be done. Can some administrator provide some help in this issue?

Direct link to the page is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Lourdes --Narendran (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What template do I use?

I'd like to use a template to ask people to NOT remove relevant information from a certain article before discussing it. Specifically, people keep removing information from a certain politician's article simply because it could be interpreted as making said politician look bad (although the language is actually quite neutral, as it is the result of discussion between editors both for and against said politician). The most recent change was clearly due to an agenda, replacing the information with unbridled praise. I'm not looking for anyone to side with me on the dispute, but I would like people to discuss removal of information before just doing so out of political bias. Which brings me back to my question, how do I address this with a template? Minaker (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is there bias?

Please tell me why there is bias, and why those who are asked about it will raise false issues (straw man) - accusing the questioner of either questioning a particular entry or comment instead of the general policy, or of questioning a general area instead of one issue, in order to attack the questioner while avoiding the specific issue the questioner raised?

It has been pointed out that properly cited and referenced questions have been put on the Obama article, but removed even though they comply with the citation and reference requirements. This implies that the editors absolutely do not want any criticism of Obama as if he were their personal hero, rather than maintaining a dispassionate separation of partisan preference and objective information.

I asked why the bias. I was accused of trying to debate Obama. If you read the following, you will see that I was asking for an answer to an apparent lapse of adherence to policy. You will also see that I acknowledged a copyright violation - with an article that points out the bias.

I would appreciate you answering my question and not questioning my "lack of support" for Obama, and would appreciate it if you looked at it with enough clear-headedness to realize I am asking about Wikipedia applying its policies in a consistent manner to people, not in a consistent manner to a poltiical ideology or preference.

 -----

Don't you agree there is a legitimate reason to at least ASK Obama to prove he is eligible?

Why does Wikipedia refuse opposing points of view? Wouldn't it welcome opposing points of view if a conservative was president? Why the bias in favour of Obama? One day, this charlatan will be reviled for plunging the US into debt, if not more dangerous things. Explain why Wikipedia is afraid of a contrast in views, of pointing out the man's negative aspects! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.253.235 (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid I was too busy beating my wife to comprehend your question.

We are afraid of copyright infringement, and I reverted your edit because you copied and pasted an entire article from a copyright source. My edit, and the note on your talk page, had nothing whatsoever to do with Mr. Obama, politics, the U.S.A., conservatives, debt, or anything else. Pretend I'm a robot that enforces Wikipedia policies and leaves pertinent notes, and we'll get along just fine. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 04:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Why the bias" is not a complex question. Anti-George Bush and anti-Ronald Reagan is allowed. Why not anti-Obama? Why aren't legitimate mentions of associations with controversial figures allowed for Obama, but they are for Alan Keyes or Stephen Harper or other conservative figures. Why the bias? Simple.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.253.235 (talk • contribs)

I'm not interested in arguing politics with you, I want you to comprehend and comply with our copyright and talk page policies. You are presupposing that this has something to do with politics, and it does not. Do you acknowledge that you violated our copyright policy? Antandrus (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge the violation. Do YOU acknowledge that others did not violate because they put in references to support their own wording? Yet you (meaning Wikipedia admin) removed their references and their wording and banned them for three days? No, of course you won't acknowledge that others obeyed the rules, because it will mean admitting that you are biased. I don't care if you support Obama, that is your democratic right. You must acknowledge that there are millions of Americans who don't support him.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.253.235 (talk • contribs)

"Why the bias" doesn't sound like a political argument. It sounds like an editorial argument. You made a straw man - saying I was arguing politics where I was really pointing out an apparent Wikipedia editorial bias.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.253.235 (talk • contribs)

Repeat after me: this has nothing to do with Obama. You are trying to make it into something to do with Obama. It has to do with Wikipedia policy. I'm an administrator, and I caught you violating it, and left you a polite warning. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Repeat after me: this has nothing to do with Obama, but it does have to do with Wikipedia allowing opposing comments for some and not for others. You have therefore confirmed that you _will not_ answer a question as to whether you are allowing bias, instead, you will simply ignore that question and accuse your questioners of things that will allow you to accuse them. Therefore, I no longer expect you to answer the question. I will tell everyone I know and beyond that Wikipedia is to be taken with a grain of salt.

  ----------

end of transcript.

I agree entirely with the last sentence. Peter jackson (talk) 10:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy

I want to refer the article on Homeopathy to be considered here. Every statement is criticised and no defense is allowed. No POV tag is being allowed to be inserted on the article either.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 10:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)