Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:28, 25 May 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dispute resolution noticeboard page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33: 14 days

Dispute Resolution

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Dispute Resolution, a collaborative effort to improve dispute resolution practices on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Dispute ResolutionWikipedia:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionTemplate:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionDispute Resolution

This page was nominated for deletion on March 30, 2013. The result of the discussion was withdrawn without prejudice.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

This FAQ page may be developed or changed over time.

Q1. Why was I invited to the discussion?

You have been listed by a filing editor in hopes that the discussion of content can be continued here with the guidance of a volunteer. You do not have to participate but are encouraged to.

Q2. Are resolutions enforceable?

The dispute resolution noticeboard is informal, and resolutions formed here are neither binding nor enforceable. DR/N relies on all involved parties to self-enforce the agreed upon resolution. Should the dispute continue with all or some involved parties ignoring the resolutions that they participated in, this may be considered as part of the next step of the DR process. Editors who continue a dispute after accepting a resolution may be perceived as disruptive by refusing to engage collaboratively on consensus.

Q3. If resolutions are not binding, why should I participate?

Wikipedia only works when editors collaborate to form a consensus. Discussion is as important in the editing process as editing itself. While participation is not a requirement at DR/N, refusing participation can be perceived as a refusal to collaborate, and is not conducive to consensus-building.

Q4. How long does a case last?

It depends on the dispute, but ideally no more than a week. Volunteers will attempt to resolve disputes as fast and as thoroughly as possible. A case can remain opened for longer than a week, if the participants are nearing a compromise.

Q5. Why are the volunteers not responding to my case?

The noticeboard has to handle a large number of cases, despite having only a small pool of volunteers. Some volunteer editors will not open a case if they are uncomfortable with or unfamiliar with the subject matter. The bot will flag the case after a set period of time if a volunteer's attention is still required.

Q6. Why was I asked to step back from a discussion?

Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked step back from the discussion if warnings for disruptive behavior go unheeded. This is to keep the discussions civil and focused on the goal or resolution and discourage further disputes from arising out of the DR/N filing. Generally an editor will recieve a warning first and will be given the opportunity to contribute in a civil and respectful manner. Should warnings not be heeded, comments may be collapsed and/or personal attacks removed entirely in some cases after warnings as well.

Q7. What is the role of a volunteer?

Volunteers are editors that assist in resolving disputes as neutral third parties. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority on the noticeboard or on Wikipedia.

Q8. Are there any requirements for volunteering?

No. All editors on Wikipedia are invited and encouraged to participate. The noticeboard is always looking for new volunteers.

Q9. Why are disputes over an editor's conduct not allowed?

Other boards are better equipped to handle behavioral disputes. Conduct disputes should be directed to formal arbitration in extreme cases, or If you need immediate assistance or intervention from administration, use the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.

Q10. Why was my case closed?

The noticeboard is only for content disputes that have been extensively discussed. Conduct disputes, disputes with no discussion, and disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums, should not be brought to DRN. However, don't be afraid to post a request, if it's outside of the noticeboard's scope, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

Q11. Why is prior discussion required?

The dispute resolution noticeboard is not a substitution for talk pages. Editors must attempt to resolve the dispute between themselves before seeking outside help as part of a collaborative effort to form consensus.

Q12. How extensive should the prior discussion be?

While time may not be a deciding factor, discussions that have only gone on for a day, and/or consist of only one or two responses, do not qualify as extensive. Edit summaries are not considered discussions.
While we accept disputes with discussions on individual user talkpages, discussions that focus on editor conduct or that only involve a minority of the dispute's participants may not qualify as extensive.
It is always recommended that discussions on content take place on the relevant article talkpage to involve as many editors as possible to form a local consensus for the subject. Sometimes editors will request discussion on their own talkpage in order not to disrupt the flow of other discussions on the subjects talkpage when a dispute is between only a small group or just two contributors.

Q13. The other editor refuses to discuss. What should I do?

Repeatedly refusing to discuss changes, especially controversial ones, is considered a conduct issue and should be brought to the administrator's noticeboard. Although Wikipedia supports bold editing, refusing to discuss can be problematic and is discouraged by Wikipedia's editing policy.

Current DRN cases

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Snowy owl	On hold	Protector100 (t)	35 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	19 days, 20 hours	Protector100 (t)	11 days, 20 hours
Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction	On hold	John Not Real Name (t)	23 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	17 days, 7 hours	Bogazicili (t)	16 days, 18 hours
2025 Pahalgam attack	In Progress	Wikipedious1 (t)	23 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 12 hours	Kautilya3 (t)	1 days, 23 hours
Agent Carter (TV series)	In Progress	Andrzejbanas (t)	20 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	18 hours	Andrzejbanas (t)	17 hours
Shenyang J-35	In Progress	ZLEA (t)	13 days, 17 hours	Mesocarp (t)	4 days, 22 hours	ZLEA (t)	4 days, 19 hours
2025 IndyCar Series	Closed	SteeledDock541 (t)	12 days, 11 hours	Mesocarp (t)	7 days, 7 hours	Mesocarp (t)	7 days, 7 hours
Drag pageantry	Closed	ZimZalaBim (t)	8 days, 19 hours	Mesocarp (t)	7 days, 22 hours	Mesocarp (t)	7 days, 22 hours
Traditional Chinese Medicine	New	YellowFlag (t)	6 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 11 hours	Roxy the dog (t)	4 days, 2 hours
1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight	Closed	אקעגן (t)	5 days, 17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 15 hours
Mohamed Hadid	New	Thedarkknightli (t)	5 days, 3 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 15 hours	Thedarkknightli (t)	17 hours
When Life Gives You Tangerines	New	Илона И (t)	3 days, 23 hours	None	n/a	Илона И (t)	3 days, 23 hours
Carus' Sasanian Campaign	Closed	Luciuseir (t)	2 days, 16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 17 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dispute resolution noticeboard page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33: 14 days

_

Proposal to eliminate the Needs Assist and Stale labels

The bot marks cases as Needs Assist and Stale when cases are current and in progress. The reason this happens (I believe) because the bot invokes those labels after a preset amount of time. Several of us have discussed this problem before and the preset date was extended (see prior discussion here) but it is still problematic and leads to confusion and frustration amongst volunteers and participants. I suggest we eliminate those labels and just have five status labels: NEW, IN PROGRESS, CLOSED, FAILED, RESOLVED. What do others think? Earwig, Guy Macon, TransporterMan-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to eliminate the Needs Assist and Stale labels. We could simply make Needs Assist like the Resolved and Failed labels -- available but triggered by a volunteer choosing to manually set the status. Needs Assist could become a label that we could use to ask other volunteers to step in and help. :Also, we could keep Stale, but have it kick in after 42 days (6 weeks), which should almost never happen.

We could add instructions to our docs saying that Needs Assist is an invitation for any volunteer to jump in and help and that Stale means that any volunteer can jump in and close the case. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK with me if they are manually applied at the discretion of the DRN volunteer. Just please take them off automatic as they are currently disruptive rather than helpful. Same goes for the IN PROGRESS label which activates prematurely and keeps volunteers away rather than drawing them. See Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities case as an example.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Needassist currently kicks in after 5 days OR within 5 days and there's been a certain amount of text added since a volunteer weighed in. We could just remove the time period factor, keep the other field. (Sorry I've been away, work has been and still is hectic so I might be on/off too). Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 09:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Earwig can you make this change? Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We really need these changes.The current system is counterproductive.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to put a note on Earwig's talk page and ask again.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In case you thought linking my username before would have notified me, that doesn't work if you link the wrong username. Right now, I'm unclear exactly what you want me to do. Can you lay all the changes out in one comment? — Earwig ^talk 17:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's really annoying when you folks suggest a change, have me implement it, and then act confused about it later. I can't understand which alternative is better. You seem to have a problem with in progress because it "keeps volunteers away", even though in progress used to be open (and still is in the bot's code), which is less ambiguous in that respect. I'll clarify that in progress's label is determined by a template, not the bot in any way. Do you not want a distinction between in progress and new? Then how do you distinguish between cases that are attended and unattended? Do you want to keep it but require volunteers to set it themselves? Then what's the point of the bot at all? It seems every aspect of the bot is constantly being called into question somehow. Not only that, but apparently I'm reluctant to fix problems despite numerous complaints. Well, in my opinion, I've made clear attempts to understand and work around a confusing process that I have no personal involvement in. This isn't working, so I've decided to shut down the clerkbot indefinitely. You know where the code is and you're welcome to adapt it yourself, as specified by the terms of the MIT License. Thanks. — Earwig ^talk 02:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vacating the DRN co-ord post

Hi all,

I'm really flat out at the moment and can't dedicate the time that the co-ordinator post needs. Can someone please take over (I've removed myself from the post). Sorry, and thanks. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 01:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~I can do it, if no one else volunteers~~.--Maleko Mela (talk) 05:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am still having medical issues (as before, nothing life threatening, just really, really annoying). I will lend a hand when I can, but may be off the computer at random times and thus cannot [commit to anything. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still traveling in Poland and won't be regularly available to help until some time after May 12. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. Seriously.--Maleko Mela (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be really nice to have a coordinator, even if just to share their experience. --Bejnar (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't take the responsibility just now as I have too many things going on in real life but I'll look in on things and do clean up etc. when I can.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have more time now so I've listed myself as DRN coordinator.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Failure: opening discussion

I tried to open discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Traditional Chinese medicine. I am on the list at Wikipedia:DRN/V#List of the DRN volunteers, but the bot didn't open it, and in fact when I manually changed the discussion to "open" the bot changed it back to "needs assist". What do I need to do? --Bejnar (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The mislabeling of cases by the Earwig bot is a chronic problem that we have complained about on numerous occasions but which the tech volunteers seem reluctant to fix.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noble Park name

After doing some research on my father Noble S.D. Buckley I noticed that you have said that Noble Park was named after an explosives supplier to my grandfather Frank Buckley, this is incorrect the area was named after his son Noble, apart from my father and mother telling me this as a child (both are now deceased) I also have a souvenir programme from 1984 which also states this. How can this be changed? Regards, Vicki Lee Filippidis Vickifilippidis (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it but if you have any further comments please place them on the article's talk page or on my user talk page as this is not the appropriate venue for such inquiries. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

Help! There are several cases that were filed more than a week ago and still have no DRN volunteer. Can you please help? Thanking you in advance! Acronin3 (talk · contribs), Buster7 (talk · contribs), EuroCarGT (talk · contribs),Mark Miller (talk · contribs), MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs), Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs), PhilKnight (talk · contribs), Technical 13 (talk · contribs), Theodore! (talk · contribs) or Khimaris (talk · contribs) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator

I've listed myself as acting coordinator in lieu of Steven Zhang's early departure from the role.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keithbob, we may need you to hold over a few days into June. Since Thehistorian10, the person signed up for June-July, has not edited WP since October 20, I emailed him and received a prompt reply back that he does intend to return and take the position once his university exams are complete on June 4, but that he may not be able to do much until after that date. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm pretty busy myself these days but I seem to be able to find an hour most days to come to DRN and do some coordination work. Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At present the project page says the coordinator role is vacant. I thought that would auto update after I put the coordinator template on my Volunteer template [1] but that hasn't happened. Any ideas?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DRN awards created

I have created a series of DRN Awards and award templates and set up, subject to community discussion, a set of rough standards for awarding them. See Dispute resolution noticeboard/Awards for details. All volunteers should feel free to hand out awards as may be appropriate after checking out that page. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DRN Award, Base Grade
DRN Award, Grade 1
DRN Award, Grade 2
DRN Award, Grade 3
DRN Award, Grade 4 (reserved)

Great idea, there are a number of volunteers doing great work at DRN and they should be appreciated. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

suzannah lipscomb

I added info to the Suzannah Lipscomb page:

Whilst studying at Oxford University she taught Lipscomb is studying history at Oxford University at the university's Middle Eastern Dancing school.

Using the following link as the source

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/oct/19/health.lifeandhealth

The user TheRedPenOfDoom is objecting to this because in the article it refers to Suzie. As Suzie is a common known abbreviated firm of Suzannah and the 'suzie' in the article studied at the same university, studying the same subject at the same time as Suzannah then I think it is fair to say this is the same person.

The RedPenOfDoom removed my info and when I reinstated it I was accused of disruptive editing. Can you please advise why my information addition is not valid?

I'm sorry, but we do not accept requests for dispute resolution on this page. If you wish to make a request for dispute resolution, first be sure that the matter has been thoroughly discussed on a talk page and if you still cannot come to a resolution, then make a request here by clicking on the "Request dispute resolution" button at the top of the main noticeboard page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible precedents as new section?

I'm not exactly intimately familiar with the workings or best practices of DRN (yet), but I was wondering whether others here would consider it potentially helpful if DRN filings included a "Possible precedents" section, where editors could add links to existing discussions that they feel might inform a current dispute. Kind of like "See also" links in articles. The section would not be used (explicitly, anyway) to try to shape a dispute, just to allow interested parties to review previous situations that might have bearing on the current one.

For instance, right now there's a dispute regarding, for film articles, "Differences from the novel" sections. I've done enough editing of film articles to know this has come up before, so I noted a discussion that had occurred at WT:FILM and a related RFC. I then remembered that there in fact had been a DRN case regarding a "Historicity" section, which while not strictly related seemed to have some similar basic arguments, so I linked to that as well (and the related RFC). My goal wasn't to say "last time this came up the ruling was X" but rather to make it clear that the situation had been discussed before and some of the arguments that applied then might be relevant to the current dispute. Now obviously there's likely to be some bias, in that editors are probably less likely to bring up precedents that don't support their viewpoints...but we can at least try to minimize the presentation of it. In any case, consensus can change; there's no reason former precedents should dictate the course of a DRN filing...but I believe they can inform it.

Anyway, I won't swear revenge on the DRN volunteers or such if nobody thinks this is worthwhile; just thought it might be potentially useful, and possibly provide a more user-friendly central point for listing precedents than wading through prose. Thanks for your thoughts! DonIago (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes its a good idea. We'd also like to have the DRN filing form amended to include a place for people to list where a recent prior discussion has taken place as it is a requirement for case acceptance and it saves the DRN coordinator and volunteers a lot of time if they have a link. So your suggestions is an extension to this idea.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change to DRN filing form requested

Per a prior discussion and consensus I've requested a change to the filing form. The request can be seen here. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I go?

Hi, I was making a few edits to timeshare tour, and there's an editor sitting-on/camping the article reverting every change I make. He's also calling me names in the talk page and making unfounded accusations. Finally, he's dismissing points I'm making about the tone and content of the article. Where do I go for help on that? Thanks you for any help. 66.67.50.210 (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you need to take your concern to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You've posted this on the DRN Talk page, where the Noticeboard and its practices/policies are discussed, not on the Noticeboard itself. Dwpaul ^Talk 16:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The editor in question has indicated he/she has moved on and left the article and the DRN case that was filed has now been closed as a result. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 :I'm going to put a note on Earwig's talk page and ask again.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — [[User:Keithbob|<b style= "color:#085;"><i>Keithbob</i></b>]] • [[User_ talk:Keithbob|<span style="color:#035;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 14:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 ::In case you thought linking my username before would have notified me, that doesn't work if you link the wrong username. Right now, I'm unclear exactly what you want me to do. Can you lay all the changes out in one comment? — [[User:The Earwig|<span style="color:#060;">Earwig</span>]] <sup>''[[User talk:The Earwig|<span style="color:#000;">talk</span>]]''</sup> 17:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
+{{od|::}}It's really annoying when you folks suggest a change, have me implement it, and then act confused about it later. I can't understand which alternative is better. You seem to have a problem with ''in progress'' because it "keeps volunteers away", even though ''in progress'' used to be ''open'' (and still is in the bot's code), which is less ambiguous in that respect. I'll clarify that ''in progress'''s label is determined by a template, not the bot in any way. Do you not want a distinction between ''in progress'' and ''new''? Then how do you distinguish between cases that are attended and unattended? Do you want to keep it but require volunteers to set it themselves? Then what's the point of the bot at all? It seems every aspect of the bot is constantly being called into question somehow. Not only that, but apparently I'm [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=608168931&oldid=608149991 reluctant to fix problems despite numerous complaints]. Well, in my opinion, I've made clear attempts to understand and work around a confusing process that I have no personal involvement in. This isn't working, so I've decided to shut down the clerkbot indefinitely. You know where [https://github.com/earwig/earwigbot-plugins/blob/develop/tasks/drn_clerkbot.py the code is] and you're welcome to adapt it yourself, as specified by the terms of the [[MIT License]]. Thanks. — [[User:The Earwig|<span style="color:#060;">Earwig</span>]] <sup>''[[User talk:The Earwig|<span style="color:#000;">talk</span>]]''</sup> 02:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 == Vacating the DRN co-ord post ==