Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:20, 5 July 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 Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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, 33Auto-archiving period: 14 days

	Dispute Resolution (inactive)
This page 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

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 The result of the discussion was withdrawn without prejudice.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 project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: Dispute Resolution (inactive) This page 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 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? Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. Q8. Are there any requirements for volunteering? No. All editors on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages supports bold editing, refusing to discuss can be problematic and is discouraged by Misplaced Pages's editing policy.

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 Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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, 33Auto-archiving period: 14 days

DRN Case Status Template updating

FYI: DRN Clerk bot task 1 (updating the case status summary template) was approved and will be updating the status template if there are updates to be had. Now if we want to, we can start hashing out what status tweaking the bot should do. Hasteur (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thanks! Looking through recent archives it appears we currently have the following case status labels with the corresponding code options (in parentheses):

New discussion.: ("new",)

Discussion in progress.: ("open", "active", "inprogress")

Needs assistance.: ("needassist", "review", "relist", "relisted")

Dispute successfully resolved.: ("resolved", "resolve")

General close. See comments for reasoning.: ("closed", "close")

Closed as failed.: ("failed", "fail")

Dispute inactive.: ("stale",)

Is this correct, Hasteur? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Per the code I'm reading at that is correct. I'm not participating in this discussion as a DRN member (but as the bot operator) so that the division between what the community wants and what the operator wants is not breached, but I would like to guide the discussion to "For each of the listed statuses, what qualifies a case to be in such a status?" The purpose is to define the rules for how the bot determines which cases will need to be tweaked. For example, "If a case has been open for 120 hours (5 days) and is not closed then change the status to Needs assist" per the justification that we should not be taking on highly complex requests and should refer it to a higher form of DR. Hasteur (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm open to the opinions of others but my feeling is that that parameters like 120hrs are arbitrary and create problems rather than expedite process. For that reason I propose that for the time being at least we continue to manually change each case status and avoid auto changes by the bot.

Furthermore, I suggest we:

1) eliminate the "Dispute inactive/stale" category as it is the same thing as "Needs assistance".

2) add "See comments for reasoning" to the "Closed as failed" and "Dispute successfully resolved" labels

What do others think? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• I second Keithbob's proposal. However, I still believe that we can use the 'inactive' category as it can be useful for situations when a dispute needs to be put on hold temporarily due to something such as a main party's short term absence. It should display as 'inactive' instead of 'stale' in the header (as 'stale' would be too similar to 'needs assistance'). MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

New user box template

I made this template so coordinators can show how proud they are of providing DRN with a smooth experience by volunteering to be coordinator. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

This user is or has been coordinator of the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

Nice! Don't forget, though, that serving as coordinator automatically also gives you a DRN Award, Grade 1, with a step-up in grade for each additional time you serve as coordinator up to a maximum of Grade 3. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for efforts to encourage and reward volunteers in every capacity.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Germany Article Mass reverts of legitimate edits

Hello. Over the past couple of weeks I have run into what I can only describe as some kind of a group of Germany page editors who are repeatedly removing and reverting legitimate edits to the Germany page. These edits, I feel, follow the standard practices of Wiki editing, eg. removing POV. I have no idea how to deal with these editors who seem to have nothing less than a fanatical zeal to keep the Wiemar and Nazi section of the article exactly as it was before. Do you have any advice on what should be done in this type of situation. It seems more than apparent that using the talk page is useless (we've been having a conversation there for 2 weeks now without anything being resolved) and these editors have created so many new sections that it's absolutely impossible to have a discussion. Their constant argument is that: "This is an FA article and has been for a long time therefore it should always remain unchanged" no matter how obvious the omission of facts may be. Any help or advice you can give would be greatly appreciated, another editor, an administrator User:John has mentioned that article would no longer qualify as an FA article, would downgrading the article's ranking change anything or simply result in more unstoppable blocking by these users?Monopoly31121993 (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

If you would like to request dispute resolution please use the form here. This talk page is only used for questions about DRN or improving the DRN experience etc,. A volunteer should be with you promptly on the main project page. Thanks! MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to file a case here at DRN but keep in mind it is a moderated discussion of content only. Accusations of bad faith and POV pushing by other editors need to be left at the door. Alternately you could open a discussion at the WP:NPOVN noticeboard or start an WP:RFC. Or assess your other options by going to WP:DRR. Good luck to you, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Moderator needed

Moderator needed for the Ghana case. I have a history with one of the participants and must recuse. If someone else could step in that would be great. Thanks! :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Case has been closed by T-Man.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The Siduri Project: what are we allowed to develop on our user pages?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, I'm trying to develop a project to improve Misplaced Pages's Siduri page with custom community created multimedia and programs. This approach, if successful, could be used on other pages and hopefully make Misplaced Pages a more effective method for transmitting information to a visitor. An administrator deleted everything, and now I am unsure what to do and what the correct Misplaced Pages rules and regulations are. Are we not allowed to use our user pages to develop projects aimed at improving Misplaced Pages? It would be ironic, and somewhat sad, if a project aimed at improving Misplaced Pages was not welcome on Misplaced Pages.Siduri-Project (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see the note at the top of this page: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dispute resolution noticeboard page". I suggest you discuss the issue with the admin concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thank you Andy, the admin deleted the content again. How can we discuss whether content is appropriate or not if it keeps being deleted before it can be discussed? Hopefully we can find a reasonable solution, I will need to check Misplaced Pages's rules, this doesn't seem right. Anyway, I appreciate that this conversation is off-topic for this thread, so I will try to reach an agreement with the admin, or move off-site while finding the correct Misplaced Pages avenue to report this.Siduri-Project (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Go to the Administrator's user talk page and discuss the matter with him/her. If you need help you can try WP:TEAHOUSE. Good luck!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Keithbob, the block in question has now been removed, but we've run into another problem and had to put the Creative Commons multimedia creation component of the project on hold so we can review if this component, as currently proposed in the provisional plan, is allowed on Misplaced Pages under the current Misplaced Pages regulations. An initial interpretation of the rules seems to be that community created Misplaced Pages article customized multimedia is allowed on Misplaced Pages if it is uploaded to Wikimedia with a Creative Commons license. Would you perhaps be able to advise me if there is a Misplaced Pages forum or other page where I could check if this interpretation of the rules is correct?Siduri-Project (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

PS. I really appreciate you wishing me "good luck"; sometimes Misplaced Pages doesn't always feel like a very friendly place.Siduri-Project (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Siduri, Sorry to cut you off but this is really not an appropriate discussion for this DRN talk page. Therefore I'm going to close this thread and respond on your user talk page. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC) (DRN Volunteer Coordinator)

Closing a case that is not appropriate for DRN

I don't really have the time to work on it right now (though I could maybe look into it next week), but this section should really be expanded and clarified; as-is it doesn't actually detail everything that should be done when closing a case for inappropriateness. If nothing else, bolding the templates that should be added in the example might be helpful. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. I've just now copy edited and reorganized the Closed section a bit. However other volunteers should feel free to amend and/or add to the content there as needed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Abiogenesis

I closed Talk:Abiogenesis as a violation of CANVASS, but the listing editor reverted my closure. I've re–closed it, but would invite any other regular volunteer here to examine my closure and reopen the case if they feel that my closure was inappropriate. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Look, I've told you already that I wasn't canvassing, and if it seems like I have been, that was not my intention. The last time I opened a DRN, it was shut down because I was the only person supporting my position. I was told it was a one-against-many situation and the consensus could not be turned because of just one person. Now I've asked users who have previously attempted to do just what I've tried to do to support me, since clearly nobody on this board will consider a lone editor's opinion. How can this be put down as canvassing? Furthermore, the user who filed this request clearly included all the editors who opposed the motion too. Now I don't see why there is a problem, since people of both viewpoints were invited to the discussion. If I hadn't asked the other users who supported my position to contribute, the case would have been rejected just like it was last time. Please re-open that thread, I ask you again. ReallyFat B. 18:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

ReallyFatB. I believe that your canvassing was done innocently and without malice. There are a lot of rules and procedures on WP and it takes a long time to learn them. On the other hand I have to agree with T-Man's closing of the case because there are other issues that make the DRN request inappropriate. There were 14 users involved in the talk page discussion and only 2-3 of them were listed as DRN participants. In addition the filing party listed several other participants who were not involved in the talk page discussion. So the DRN submission is/was malformed in many respects. Again I don't think there was any malice in these actions but the bottom line is that this dispute does not fit into DRN's forum which is defined as an informal place for minor content disputes. Since there are so many participants involved in this dispute I would suggest that you file a WP:RFC. I understand your frustration so if you need some help or advice in how to formulate the RfC, give me a ping on my user talk page and I'll assist you. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

ReallyFat B. Reading the article's talk page the involved talk pages I'm of the opinion that while a close based on CANVASS is a rather weak argument, I don't think we're going to see any change in position on this debate as a result of a DRN thread. I think it would be better if both sides agreed to conduct a RFC (advertised to appropriate locations such as the associated Wikiprojects (including Wikiproject Science)) that had an outcome of establishing a limited time (1 year) binding consensus regarding the lead sentence to be closed by an uninvolved Administrator in good standing. This will end the debate for the time being and focus attention back to improving the article and Misplaced Pages as a whole while at the same time disarming this potential drama magnet for a while. Hasteur (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It is a rather weak argument as every participant was involved in the discussion of the beginning sentence of that article, albeit at different times. An RFC seems agreeable though and it could achieve the same result that we desire. Besides, what choice do we have? Re-opening the DRN will surely lead to another excuse to shut it down, as it seems that it's been agreed here to keep it closed. --86.21.101.169 (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem with filing requests for comment in this will be that the parties we appeal to are mostly proponents of this theory and will not be inclined to change anything. Unless you can call in the correct people, people who will appreciate the facts of the situation, we're going to get a whole storm of users just like BatteryIncluded insulting and defaming our beliefs and not addressing the question. The people who are part of this project support it, so asking them for comments is pointless - they will support the current position. Could we not refile this? We can ask all the users who were part of the discussion (and KeithBob, there were four different instances where this was addressed, which is why some of the listed users may have seemed unfamiliar to you) at any time to contribute to the DRN, achieve a consensus, and state that it should be binding for a year, thereby achieving a much more neutral and fair final decision. What do you think?ReallyFat B. 06:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

ReallyFat B. Either you are going to accept the consensus decision (which Misplaced Pages almost always works on) or you're not going to remain an editor for long. Unless you can call in the correct people WOAH THERE! You need to put that thought out of your head right now. That's canvassing and one of the fastest ways to your viewpoint being labeled as disruptive editing and being put in the padded room. Do we ask literature major graduates about theroritical physics? Why shouldn't the members of the science based wikiprojects be invited to participate in the RFC? Hasteur (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Because those very members are the people opposing us. That is why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReallyFat B. (talk • contribs) 16:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

So you want a discussion to resolve an editing dispute, but you don't want to invite the editors that disagree with your viewpoint? Hello ... echo ... echo... Ravensfire (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Alright then. Point taken. I think we should open another talk thread on the topic, this time fairly representing both sides, and have the discussion closely monitored by an administrator. What do you think? ReallyFat B. 19:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that would get shut down even more quickly than the threads at abiogenesis. To the best of my understanding, you're making an argument that the scientific consensus is wrong. You may be right, but en.WP isn't an appropriate place for that discussion. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The scientific consensus is that it's a hypothesis. Unfortunately we can't get that put down on the page when biased mods abuse their power. --86.21.101.169 (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

This, exactly. This is the problem in its entirety. That the members in question ignore scientific consensus and abuse their power so they can promote their own opinions on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReallyFat B. (talk • contribs) 11:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

My name's Chaz, I'm the one who filed the DRN in the first place. My discussion is the result of several attempts to improve an article on Misplaced Pages, only to have facts, evidence (or lack thereof), and logic ignored. You can see exactly what I did and Reallyfat B. suggesting I open a DRN does not violate any sort of technicality in any way, since I did not even know what a DRN was until a few days ago. Had I known the process I would have made it myself without his suggestion. So to close my discussion based only on the fact that the DRN was premeditated by someone other than myself is unfair to me, as I spent an hour of my time creating it. Had I known that this process existed, I would have wrote up the same exact discussion, regardless of who told me about the DRN process. I put my time and effort into this thing, it needs to be heard out in full. Shandck (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest a refilling but I would also tell editors not to edit the closing comments. That section is not for a discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

A refiling of this case will only result in another close. Forgetting about the canvassing issue.......... I counted 14 editors involved in the one discussion thread. ReallyFatB says there were other editors in other threads. That means a 'proper' DRN filing would include up to 20 participants. It would be absurd and pointless and outside the scope of DRN which is defined as "an informal place to resolve small content disputes." T-Man, Hasteur and myself have all stated that an RfC is the appropriate action in this instance. However, ReallyFatB (RFB) seems to be saying there has already been a consensus on the talk page and an RfC will have the same undesirable result. So it appears RFB is Forum Shopping for a preferred result. Sorry, but that is not how WP works. Bottom line is this dispute will not be heard here at DRN. Please explore your other options at WP:DR and WP:DRR.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC) (DRN Vounteer Coordinator)

This is one of those times I do disagree. I do feel the party should be allowed to re-file, reword and re-think the dispute. Now, I am also not aware of any participation limit. What are too many editors? Many will likely decline and some may not even really be a part of the dispute. But as always I defer to consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Editor Denisona out of control

This is the second time Denisona has randomly deleted strictly accurate and duly sourced material from an article.

This time, I added it back with the proper attribution and a statement that some authorities (to wit, Denisona) seem to disagree.

I see that I am FAR FROM the only person who has had issues with this person, for whom Denisova is a more appropriate moniker, if you get the pun . . .

What to do? I am tired of obnoxious three-day bans and such because I disagree with editors who take it upon themselves to be capricious, subjective, and, above all, asinine.

50.128.184.140 (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution noticeboard