Dispute Resolution (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dispute Resolution, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dispute ResolutionWikipedia:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionTemplate:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionDispute Resolution articles

Regarding the revert of my publicizing of my RFC here, I started a thread in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment titled, "Removal of my rfc publicizing from noticeboard". Per WP:SEETALK, I'm only providing notice about the existence of said discussion, because it is relevant to this noticeboard. I post it there because it affects publicizing of RFCs at large. Also per the RFC page that said doubts about requests for comment should be discussed in the talk page. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DRN volunteers: - I have started an essay listing some of the types of cases that I have seen that are filed at DRN that are not appropriate cases for DRN. Please see Wikipedia:Types of DRN Filings. So far, it seems that I have listed 16 types of cases that DRN does not handle. Please discuss this list, either here, or at Wikipedia talk:Types of DRN Filings. Feel free to add types of disputes that don't belong here. Since this is cases that don't belong at DRN, I am also willing to consider renaming the essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

Requesting some systematic mediation help from some experienced mediator from WP:DRN; @ Talk:2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault#Re–insertion of WP:BLP violation by dif 1109434561

Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bookku - Follow the instructions on the project page, DRN, for requesting mediation. That is, press the button that says Request Dispute Resolution, and then enter the information in the forms. Also, do not file requests at both DRN and BLPN, because DRN does not consider a dispute that is also pending in another forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Robert McClenon The disagreement at hand is going to need inputs of users from other forums like WP:Due/ Undue weight reliability of source information and of course BLPN.

It is close call so any way that is likely to be settled only with RfC. But we both main contesting users have habit of writing long and primarily I am seeking guidance in writing briefly and systematically the way it happens in DRN and preferably @ article talk page itself to avoid any forum shopping charges.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bookku - You do not need to request input from the project talk page for a policy or guideline. Regardless of whether you file a request at DRN, do not try to discuss a dispute in multiple places at the same time, because that is known as forum shopping and is disapproved of. So either request DRN, or don't request DRN, and ask for help somewhere else. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for clarification and guidance.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard page is far too bureaucratic for my comfort, I have no idea where I'm supposed to post not how to format it. At least Arbcom tells you to put all your posts in your own personal section, which nobody else is permitted to post in. Anyway, I'm being asked to clarify something that I thought that I had already clarified. I shall quote from the W3C's HTML 5.2 specifications for the four tags concerned:

• 4.5.5. The s element: represents contents that are no longer accurate or no longer relevant. The s element is not appropriate when indicating document edits; to mark a span of text as having been removed from a document, use the del element.
• 4.5.24. The u element: represents a span of text with an unarticulated, though explicitly rendered, non-textual annotation, such as labeling the text as being a proper name in Chinese text (a Chinese proper name mark), or labeling the text as being misspelt. In most cases, another element is likely to be more appropriate: for marking stress emphasis, the em element should be used; for marking key words or phrases either the b element or the mark element should be used, depending on the context; for marking book titles, the cite element should be used; for labeling text with explicit textual annotations, the ruby element should be used; for technical terms, taxonomic designation, transliteration, a thought, or for labeling ship names in Western texts, the i element should be used.
• 4.6.1. The ins element: represents an addition to the document.
• 4.6.2. The del element: represents a removal from the document.

In all four cases, exactly the same text is given by WhatWG (although the section numbers differ): 4.5.5 The s element; 4.5.22 The u element; 4.7.1 The ins element; 4.7.2 The del element. Neither of these authorities refer to any of the four elements as either "deprecated" or "obsolete". The <strike>...</strike> element, however, is shown as obsolete by both bodies (W3C; WhatWG), with the recommendation to use <del>...</del> or <s>...</s> instead. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert McClenon, per your instructions here, I have a right to instate the edits as seen fit due to my timely participation in this discussion. After this, it would be I who has the right to file an RfC, with your assistance to ensure neutral wording.

After first stalling and stonewalling this DRN process, Srijanx22 has now directly undermined the RfC process by disregarding your instruction and rushing to start an RfC himself, which is clearly not neutrally worded, omitting the contradicting statement and sources presented here and in the lead. As I see it, this illegitimate RfC needs to be closed ASAP, and I think ANI is the immediate next step instead, after this procedural disruption. What do you think? As I see it, these are back-to-back breaches of procedure. Sapedder (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sapedder - My first thought is that you are right, because it appears that they were waiting on the side in order to get the dispute resolution to fail. I will reply again shortly. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]