Wikipedia talk:Conflicts between users

With a common goal of accumulating, ordering, structuring and making freely available what knowledge in mind, if we concentrate on achieving NPOV even when it is difficult, if we try to actually understand those we label problem users, then we can reach the state of WikiLove. Otherwise, the encyclopedia as a whole will suffer.

Understanding pests might not be enough. Sometimes, we need help from others. --Uncle Ed 15:41, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I disagree with Uncle Ed's move of this page. I also wish he had discussed it prior to the move. "Conflicts between users" does not describe the majority of prior use of this page (which includes even recently banned users such as Khranus and NightCrawler). "Conflicts between users" are not at ll the same as "Problem users". Problem users are users abuse Wikipedia, violate accepted policies and guidelines, act offensively towards others, etc. If there is an issue with the name "Problem users", please specify what the issue is and we can come up with a better name. Until then, could we please move this page back? Daniel Quinlan 04:37, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)

Problems aren't solved by sweeping them under the rug, and retitling this page isn't going to make "problems" go away. What's next, "Resolutions between users that have only yet to be achieved"? - Tweak 04:45, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree that the move should have been discussed before being made. I have to say that I prefer "Conflicts between users" to "Problem users" for the simple reason that those listed here are less likely to get upset about it (or so it seems to me). Inappropriate listings may also decrease: it's a lot more satisfying to an angry Wikiquette violator to label his or her opponent a "Problem user" than it is to make an entry on "Conflicts between users". -- Cyan 04:51, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

So, if I'm listing someone like Khranus or NightCrawler, then I become part of the conflict, meaning I'm the problem? Should I just permanently list myself as "conflicted" since I help out with vandalism? I think this will only help sweep problem users under the rug and discourage people from talking about people who persistently mistreat other users. Or, people will just find another place to talk about problem users. I don't think relativism will help improve Wikipedia when it comes to people who abuse it, bringing down the people who don't abuse it. Daniel Quinlan 05:04, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)

I imagine listing someone like NightCrawler would go something like this:

User:NightCrawler

I'm having some problems with User:NightCrawler. I felt his treatment of User:Petermanchester was out of line, so I tried to discuss the matter with him (see diff/talkpage/whatever). He didn't take my attempt at constructive criticism well, so I hope someone else can have a talk with him about this. -- Cyan 05:17, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think it will rapidly become clear after such a listing if NightCrawler is likely to be a chronic problem, but it isn't likely to overly upset someone who is willing to mend their ways. Being labelled a "Problem user", on the other hand, may very well upset someone to the point that they are no longer thinking clearly, and become more interested in "clearing their name" than in working together. -- Cyan 05:17, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I also find this name change a very bad one. I have added a person to this page a few times, but rarely because of a 'conflict'. When I put someone like SmartBee on this page, it is not my idea that there is some kind of conflict to be fought out, nor that that user might be get banned when he does not change his ways. To me, I mention them here to tell others "Hey, here is someone whose edits have to be watched extra careful for some specific reason." Andre Engels 16:42, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

How about WP:Complaints about users? silsor 05:06, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)

I never liked having a forum for complaining about other PEOPLE. It's too easy to abuse such a forum.

If two people have a conflict of GOALS, now that's something that can be worked out a lot of the time.

We're supposed to be making good ARTICLES here; that should take priority. --Uncle Ed 18:25, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Not all conflicts can be resolved. My goal is to improve Wikipedia. Some people have the goal to vandalise, cause conflict, push personal agendas that are frankly bizarre or worse. Abuse of this forum has been handled rather easily by other users in the past, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Daniel Quinlan 00:15, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)

This whole Polish cities with "German" names conflict involving User:Caius2ga, User:taw, User:24.2.152.139, and User:Nico is getting out of control. As User:Jwrosenzweig pointed out on Wikipedia:Conflicts between users, it's taking up more than hals the page and there seems to be no end in sight. I'm hoping we can generate some suggestions on how to deal with this -- short of temporary bans. Any ideas? -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 02:36, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The arbitration committee comes online in January. While I believe it has been created primarily as a mechanism for deciding when a ban is appropriate, I for one would be perfectly happy to see it intervene authoritatively (or authoritarian-ly) in this ongoing wrangle (that is, not by banning users, but by settling the issue once and for all). -- Cyan 03:27, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The name of this page needs to change, perhaps back to Wikipedia:Problem users (the even older Wikipedia:Annoying users is probably not appropriate), or to something different since most of these conflicts are about one user doing something and not necessarily two users feuding. Maximus Re x 04:15, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Many people have expressed similar feelings above. I appear to be the one who has expended the most bytes arguing for Ed Poor's name change, (albeit after the fact), but I no longer feel that the move helped very much. In light of the the opinion of others and my own change of heart, I hereby give you the mandate to make the changes you feel are appropriate, in as much as anyone can give anyone else such mandates around here. -- Cyan 04:49, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Copied from the metapage:A couple of points: maybe this page should be renamed Wikipedia:Unresolved conflicts between users to encourage people to sort things out between themselves first. If a complaint is made here with no history of previous attempts at resolution, it could simply be deleted..... User:Bmills 09:12, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think people should suggest names here. After thinking about the situation some more, I think renaming the page Wikipedia:Problem users would be a step backwards. Maximus Re x 12:33, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think this page should be left as it is, under the name it has (with the intent which the name suggests), and a separate, more extreme page (maybe Wikipedia:Alleged violations of policy or something like that) should be created with an ominous name which lets those listed know that they are on the path to being banned, if they don't shape up. The new page should only be used after a person has been listed here a time or two, and after normal contacts and attempts at persuasion have failed. Jack 12:52, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

My own view is that conflicts between users should be resolved between the parties involved and only brought before the community if no resolution is possible. The current page name invites posting here as a first recourse. Bmills 13:07, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

From recent experiences, I can say that the name makes no difference. It is just as upsetting being listed on "conflicts between users" as it would have been had I been listed on "problem users". It amounts to the same thing, and people will still regard the listing as a listing of a problem user. "Violations of policy" seems a little extreme. Perhaps the aim of the page needs to be resolved before the name of it can be. Is it supposed to be the first step in banning someone? Is it a place to call for mediation? Is it just a place to complain about people you don't like? Basically, why is this page here? Angela . 18:56, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)

You both are really getting to the core issue here. How should people handle problems on the wiki? And where should they do it? Cuz their are clearly LOADS of people w all sorts of problems ;) Of course airing issues publicly is a horrible 1st step. But it definately needs to be an option somewhere along the way. And where is it going? I like to think that it is going towards making each of us a better editor, maybe even a better person, and all of us a better community. Because banning people is such a big and bad and ugly thing, there needs to be alot of legitamate options for banging each over the head and having it out publiclly jerry springer style before that ;) Honestly, I don't see much in the way of situations w editers where the bad outweighs the good, and they seem sincerely opposed to learning a better way. As obnoxious as some people clearly are, IMO a basic criteria of banning someone should be a tremendous imbalance of bad, in exchange for what little (if any) good they offer, as well as a total lack of any signs of progress. The best possible way to prevent stuff like that is having alot of places to go to get stuff solved. Personally, I would like to have more pages like this one, perhaps a series of steps in the arbitration, re-training, evaluation process. Jack 05:27, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Please stop mercilessly reverting the Wikipedia:Conflicts between users page. This is a functional page; some of us actually want to use it, but are instead faced with repetitive edit conflicts. I suggest if you want to revert each other over and over and over, then do it in the Sandbox, where it won't impinge on the rest of us. - Mark 03:31, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a new rule that people who are the subject of Conflicts shouldn't be allowed to revert the page? Edit by all means, but ask others to revert if you think it's justified rather than get into a revert war of your own. As it is, this childishness has stopped anyone who isn't an administrator from editing this page. -- ChrisO 18:22, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Due to this edit war, I am protecting this page for 24 hours as a cooling-off period. Admittedly, this is not the best solution (in other words, I think it is a lame thing to do, too), but the only other solution I see is to ban Wik either temporarily or permanently -- & I would rather see another, less extreme solution. I will lift this ban before then if Wik promises to stop reverting this page.

Until then, add all new material to this Talk page, for addition when I lift the protection. -- llywrch 18:25, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Is this page at all useful for anything? It seems as though all that happens is someone gets upset, they post a name here, there's inconclusive talk for a while, and then nothing happens, no matter how many times the person concerned has offended, or whatever. Is this at all purposive? john 06:12, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I wondered that too. The problem is that people are highly unlikely to ever be banned and there is nothing in between banning and not banning. We need some kind of measure that is less severe than a complete ban really, like banning people from certain pages. But without the threat of a real ban happening if the person doesn't stop editing a particular page, there's no way of enforcing it without software changes. Angela . 06:24, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

Well, one thing is that there are users who clearly should simply be banned, at least temporarily (I mean, RK's constant ad hominems alone are worthy of banning, without even getting into the substance of the arguments), and nothing ever happens. One problem with this page, I think, is that it doesn't seem to have any real mechanism to move from a discussion of "conflicts between users" to any kind of actual discussion of whether someone should be banned, nor is there any kind of regular procedure that one can institute if one thinks that somebody should be banned. The whole current way things operate seems to be based around a massive difficult user coddling operation. I mean, I'm not advocating that we go crazy with banning, but it just seems like nobody is ever banned. Difficult users leave more frequently of their own accord than they actually get banned. john 06:32, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That's because our banning policy is pretty useless. It requires Jimbo to make a judgement, which he frequently doesn't have the time to do. A good start would be to reword Wikipedia:Bans and blocks to be a bit more ambiguous, then to push sysop-led banning here. The software does allow one thing between banning and not banning, and that's temporary banning. Ban the user for a set period of time determined by consensus, unlike the unilateral indefinite ban which was imposed on RK. (via EC with the three subsequent entries)-- Tim Starling 06:44, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

That's in part because bans are very broad. Problematic contributors are quite often, though not always, problematic only in certain domains. Banning a person who gets very heated about Israel-related topics just from those topics would remove a lot of the potential for conflict, while still allowing for their productive contributions elsewhere. Things like move wars may also be somewhat aleviated by such local bans, at least some of the time. Jamesday 07:22, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hey, scroll up a bit and read what I was saying about just that! I'm on the same page as john.... Jack 06:39, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

My instinct is to say yes, as many times, a revert war or vandalism or some such may simply fade into the background due to lack of interest, both on the part of the "problem user" and those who were affected...an analog to the situation of dealing with a troll on a mailing list by ignoring them. Of course, this is not always the case; in fact, I can't think of a recent case where this has happened. - Scooter 06:37, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There used to be /ban pages but Jimbo declared they were not allowed anymore, so this page got used instead. He said at the time that all discussions on banning should be sent directly to him, but since then has appointed the Arbitration committee, so presumably they are meant to do something about it... There is the new Wikipedia:Conflict resolution page but I don't think anything is really organised enough yet for mediation or arbitration to occur. Angela . 06:42, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

Can we please delete all of the specious additions made by Mr. Natural Health and direct him to to Talk pages of the articles he's having problems on? RickK 01:37, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Page size

This page has grown too much. It is now 139k and commented on daily. I suggest subpages, one for each user who is complained about, with a master index on the main page. silsor 02:04, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)

When the all new Wikipedia:conflict resolution page becomes active, this page should see a lot less traffic. Martin

I think that is a great idea! There should just be a link to the subpage with maybe a line of text about the major issue. We should just point people to the right place. I'll go ahead and do this. --mav 02:28, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As an example, I did the first one. But I see that subpages are not enabled for the Wikipedia namespace. This will complicate matters. --mav 02:39, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Subpages work now. --mav

I think there should be one subpage for each user who is complained about, not one subpage for each "versus" conflict. silsor 02:55, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)

That sounds an awful idea in my opinion. How is it any different to the old /ban pages we used to have before Jimbo said we weren't to have those any more? The main objection I have to sub pages is that it does not allow MeatBall:ForgiveAndForget. On the conflicts between users page, things are deleted from the page and can be forgotten about. On subpages, they will always be there (and searchable through Google, which they would not be were they only in the page history). What advantage is there to having these subpages other than page size? Angela . 13:50, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)

Constant edit conflicts, slow page saves, having to scroll for a long time to navigate from conflict to conflict. Need I go on? Also, being able to see that two users have been in conflict before would be a feature. But the subpages could just as easily be deleted once the conflict is over. Or we could have numbered conflict subpages - when a conflict is over, the page is blanked and used for another conflict. --mav

Other than page size there is no real advantage. However, in the time this discussion took place, the page grew to 146kb. What do you propose? silsor 17:25, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)

We need to decide what the point of the page is before we decide what to do with it. If it's to get people banned, then the people listed should be banned, and the discussion can be moved to their user page. If it's supposed to start off mediation, then the content should be removed and emailed to the mediation mailing list. If it's to decide whether or not mediation is necessary, then there should be a clearly defined time limit for that (a week should be sufficient). After this time, if it is decided mediation is not required then the listing can be removed. If mediation is required, email the content to the list. If the page is just a place to complain about people with no expectation of anything arising from that complaint, then you might as well just delete old listings when you feel like it, as there's no point in them anyway. Angela . 18:45, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)~

I would like it to become part of Wikipedia:Conflict resolution and modeled after the structure of Wikipedia:Current polls (but with subpages, instead of links to talk pages). It would just be a place to inform the community of certain conflicts between users. Community members could then weigh-in on the particular disputes. But this page, as it is now, is very difficult to use and thus does not encourage general community involvement. Often just the people who are closely involved in the conflict have enough patience to deal with this monster of a page. The result, IMO, is more of a bitch-fest than talking through disputes with a wider (and thus not so personally attached audience). --mav

Temporary bans

I'd like to see temporary bans given out pretty freely by admins (and of course a strict review process to watch the admins!) in order to curb bad behaviors. IMO permanant bans are almost impossible to enforce, but temporary bans are obviously annoying and awkward to those punished, and have a much less negative effect on the community. I get the impression sometimes that a non-vandal has little to fear from anyone except Jimbo. There seems to be little or no reprecussions for people making someone elses experience here less pleasent, or editing poorly. Where is the wikipedia:crappy editing in progress page, to report complaints based sheerly on editorial quality? Has anybody seen how long the list is on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention? Can you imagine how great it would be if that page got as much attention as this one, or VfD??? ;) Jack 07:24, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This has been pointed out before, and the chartering of the mediation and arbitration committees is the first step in this direction. Jimbo has been reluctant to create any sort of hierarchy among users (wisely so, IMO); sysops are nominally supposed to be responding to community consensus rather than making value decisions on their own.

I belive that most conflicts have their roots in disagreements over articles and that by having a fair, transparent process for dealing with such disagreements the amount of conflict will decline. And a few users may have to improve their overall tone or leave the project. Those two things should be enough to instill the degree of civility you seek. Regards, UninvitedCompany

Section headings

Will anyone object to me changing the section headings so that you can actually tell who is the complainer and who is the complainee? -- Tim Starling 04:55, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no. -- Tim Starling 07:21, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

I like the idea, but I don't understand how you did it tho. I placed 2 seperate people here, and yet one (Kenneth) was befor emy name, and another (bryan) after... I made them uniform. Whuch way is correct? Jack 07:39, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The "vs" thing was horribly confusing, people would either arrange the names according to their personal preference or claim that someone was "vs. article headers" or something. The scheme I just applied is as follows: first, the name of the complainee is given, then optionally a colon and a subject, then the name of the person who created the first entry in brackets. I don't really care if the discussion shifts to banning the person who complained halfway through -- I think this scheme is sufficient to characterise the debate and avoid ambiguity. I didn't add complainer names to all the entries that didn't have them already, and I'm not sure whether that should be done or not. -- Tim Starling 07:59, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

What you did is great. It meakes it easier to tell whats going on, and whose being addressed. My above complaint was about the half way point. Thanks Tim. Jack 08:36, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

How do you like it now? No discussion whatsoever on the main page, just directories to link into for active discussions, and archives for inactive? I think it should be kept this way, so much less messy! Jack 13:52, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment

See Wikipedia talk:Conflict resolution for a possible way to better handle user and article disputes. --mav 19:03, 24 Jan 2004 (PST)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment has been created. I would therefore like to start the process of slowly depreciating this page by directing new dispute items to RfC. If there are no objections I'll leave such a note at the top of this page. The policy statements may be eventually ported over as well. --mav

I am very pleased with what I have seen of what you have done. I have some confidence that your improvements will be a much needed option for people who havn't had useful options for dealing with their disputes (great and small). Lets hope the is the right amount of interest in this, and among the right people :) Jack 04:15, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Jack. :) I hope RfC works well too. --mav

Listing yourself

Can someone list themselves on this page?

Yes
- Yes, but only if they have multiple personalities. No-One Jones (talk)
- Yes, but only to confess their sins and be shriven. -- Cyan 03:43, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No

Deprecating the page

As Tim Starling clarified on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, we have two separate processes. Dispute resolution is to handle situations where two or more users disagree over the content of an article (i.e. edit wars). This page, on the other hand, handles situations where one user may be engaging in serious violations of our policies or behavior guidelines. Granted, some of the behavior happens during edit wars, but I think we need to have a clear grasp of the distinction. Accordingly, I propose that we rename the page "Alleged user misconduct", or something similar (alternative proposals welcome). --Michael Snow 23:46, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I was under the impression this page was supposed to be being deprecated in favor of the Wikipedia:Requests for comment page. Angela . 02:23, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

Now that you point it out, I've found the relevant discussion. Previously I had only seen the discussion relating to Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles. But since both pages are seeing quite a bit of current activity, it's pretty clear to me that the deprecation is not taking place very effectively. We might want to post a prominent notice at the top of these pages telling people to use RfC instead. --Michael Snow 22:07, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A redirect might be a quicker solution... Angela . 13:22, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

Quicker, but maybe a little drastic? The amount of activity suggests to me that a lot of people might not be aware of the discussion, and therefore not believe there is a consensus to deprecate this page. So I'll state clearly here that based on the discussion above, as well as at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution, this page is now considered deprecated. It will be converted into a redirect to RfC in one week, unless significant objections are registered on this talk page before then. --Michael Snow 00:30, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)