﻿ Proposal for conflict resolution section | PhysicsOverflow
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

174 submissions , 137 unreviewed
4,288 questions , 1,628 unanswered
5,079 answers , 21,572 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
631 active unimported users
More ...

  Proposal for conflict resolution section

+ 2 like - 1 dislike
144 views

I propose to create a new section of PO called 'conflicts'.

The purpose is to have a clean separation between discussions of official and technical issues (in 'meta') and discussions about complaints and violations of user rights or etiquette (in 'conflicts').

Any serious violation of user rights should be posted and discussed in the section 'conflicts'. Any serious violation of etiquette should also be posted and discussed in the section 'conflicts', but only if it couldn't be settled through editing and/or private discussion.

A number of the old discussions on meta could be moved to 'conflicts'.

asked Mar 31, 2015 in Feature Request by Arnold Neumaier (13,979 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Apr 2, 2015 by dimension10
Most voted comments show all comments

I better question would be to ask how Meta should be modified generally, given the problems that have arisen over the past year to do with the smooth running of PO.

If implemented, I think this section should be hidden behind some wall in order not to provoke external trolls to fool around there.

No, I did not think of search engines, rather of external visitors. For example, I do not see actually "Categories" with its tree containing "Closed questions", so "Closed questions" are inaccessible to me if I do not know where to find them. Something like this.

@ArnoldNeumaier Done.

@VladimirKalitvianski I'll ask polarkernel about the feasibility of that.

@dilaton: I also prefer the name 'conflict resolution'. I don't mind that general discussions about how to handle conflicts are also there. Indeed it makes sense to me, as those interested in seeing how user complaints are handled will most likely be the same as those who are also interested in seeing (and perhaps contributing to) the discussions about the corresponding policies.

Most recent comments show all comments

@Dimension10 but the proposal says

The purpose is to have a clean separation between discussions of official and technical issues (in 'meta') and discussions about complaints and violations of user rights or etiquette (in 'conflicts').

As I read this, the conflict resolution section now called moderation complaints (I would have preferred the original name as edit condflicts could then be resolved there too for example), the section is meant to contain discussions about specific violtions or disagreements, and not so much general discussions about policies or guidelines concerning user behavior. Maybe @ArnoldNeumaier can comment on what his intention was?

@Dilaton OK I've renamed it to conflict resolution. The discussions you linked to are about specific disagreements rather than general policy.

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysicsO$\varnothing$erflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...
https://physicsoverflow.org/29409/proposal-for-conflict-resolution-section
physicsoverflow.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-26
124831
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:XTBXUL22UASKSJF3DXYFBFRKPTFARX3B
<urn:uuid:15e17d19-7dc5-42ea-bb4e-d2b7d45c9cf8>
2019-06-25T13:52:54Z
129.70.43.86
text/html
sha1:LW4QF3AEF7H52MFH7T7NP6POT2IIBN6U
<urn:uuid:43be25d7-414c-4236-b946-bacdcec86bc7>
https://physicsoverflow.org/29409/proposal-for-conflict-resolution-section
response
<urn:uuid:42104501-3a80-4821-bc02-279099721862>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-26
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for June 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-159-124-62.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/