Misplaced Pages

talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John B123 (talk | contribs) at 21:36, 13 May 2020 (→TOC Issue: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:36, 13 May 2020 by John B123 (talk | contribs) (→TOC Issue: Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dispute resolution noticeboard page.
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 
WikiProject iconDispute Resolution (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis 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
? 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:
WikiProject iconDispute Resolution (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis 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?
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?

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

Request button

Hello DRN regulars, I pushed a minor technical change to the "request" button that should let it work for everyone regardless of their "gadget settings". If you see something broken, it can be reverted at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Header. If you see a problem, please let us know at MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-DRN-wizard.js#convert_to_Snippets/Load_JS_and_CSS_by_URL?. Will let this bake in for a little bit before disabling the gadget method. — xaosflux 03:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Xaosflux - Thank you. If you are looking at the technical stuff, could you also look at the list of cases that displays at the top of the noticeboard? Why is it displaying all of the cases always as New? Thank you to anyone who can fix that. It has been doing that for several months, and I complain about it, but I don't want to complain too often because that would get annoying (and the bug is already annoying).

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Haven't gotten to that part yet, but can take a look. — xaosflux 14:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
The link has been converted to a direct link and gadget removed, side affect is it should actually load quicker now and avoid FOUC for users. — xaosflux 14:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The request button isn’t working for me Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Wjrz nj forecast, I just posted a test case and can confirm that it is, in fact, working. If you still can't post, it's a problem at your end, not ours. Consider trying a different browser or different computer. There is no way to post a case request except through the button because the process adds code that allows the maintenance bot to work correctly. If you cannot post at all, consider some other form of dispute resolution, such as a Request for Comments. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC) PS: @Wjrz nj forecast: If the dispute that you're seeking to file is about Talk:Kim_Jong-un#When_are_we_going_back_to_Wikipedia_values?, then don't bother. No case would be accepted here about that dispute. Depending on how you characterize it, it could (a) be about whether the extended protection policy should exist and policy discussions are not within the scope of this noticeboard, (b) be about whether the administrator who applied that policy to that article acted incorrectly and, being about user conduct, that's also not within the scope of this noticeboard, or (c) whether the protection at that particular article should be lifted by community consensus and there is already a clear consensus against that position, so no dispute to be resolved here. If you want to discuss (a) start a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Protection policy, if (b) then file a complaint at WP:AN after carefully reading and following the instructions, if (c) about your only shot at this point is a request for comments but it would almost certainly fail, so the best advice is to drop the stick and get in the edits needed to have extended confirmed status. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Paid Editors

@DRN volunteers: - Do we need to revise or clarify the guidelines about paid editors? Sometimes, including in the past 24 hours, we get requests from paid editors who are either polite or demanding and want moderated discussion of their requests to revise articles on their clients. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Robert - I was thinking about maybe making a few changes to the front page, but have not quite outlined it. CIO is definitely on my list and I think why is it not publicly advertised on any edit pages as a header and I think it should state something about the COI and I think we need to EMPHASIZE Misplaced Pages:Be civil. I am also thinking of some back end changes that I was going to open a discussion on with the DRNV and see if we can come to a consensus.

 DoneRight now, I am seeing if I can find out as to why the bot is not playing nice. Looks like the owner abandoned, so I have all the code and am running a test to see what happens. If anyone has any ideas, let me know.

Here is what I have thought of right now:
  1. When case is opened, it will automatically push out notifications to the parties listed by the filers
  2. When case is opened, it will automatically push out the article notification about a DRN discussion
  3. When we get our emails or notifications, have it provide a direct link to the DRN discussion and the sub-heading so we don't have to search through the entire discussion especially when we are involved in more than one case.
  4. Automate responses when we make an action (i.e. close, decline, etc.) that will post to all user talk pages and update the article notice that the discussion was closed with the reason
  5. When we make edits, comments, etc. our signature will automatically append with DRN Volunteer (only on the DRN notice board)
    V/R Galendalia CVU Member \ 08:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Major content removal of China national football team article

DRN does not accept case requests through the talk page. However, note that DRN does not accept cases about user conduct at all, but only cases about article content. If a case had been filed with the allegations first set out here, it would almost certainly have been rejected for that reason. This venue also requires extensive talk page discussion about content disputes before filing a case and none has occurred, so no case is available through DRN at this time. If you wish to make a complaint about user conduct, the proper venue is WP:ANI but be sure to carefully read and follow the instructions there before filing. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

User:Pestick and User talk:14.231.64.162 who I believe are the same, has recently been removing large amounts of content from this article using the disguise of Recentism. Upon inspecting his/her edits, this person is maliciously removing encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view to suit their bias opinion.

When I undid one of their edits and clearly stated that it was referenced and their edits was leading to systemic bias and lack of neutral point of view. I was confronted with this on the China national football team: Revision history page

"There is a discuss in the talk page, made by another editor. You are up against two editors including me. I'm trying to condense the article per TP:Overly detailed. Please don't disrupt the article's renovation process. This is not mainly about dead links, it's about condensing the article and getting rid of excessive intricate details." (16:09, 25 April 2020‎)

I looked this up at the Talk:China national football team and all I could find was David Tornheim wrote, "I hope editors can review the sourcing and fix broken links." (10:04, 21 April 2020) Further research lead me to User talk:14.231.64.162 where Materialscientist suggested this person use Sandbox. David Tornheim came in and was encouraging to the new editor, suggested a more neutral tone, replace sources that were lacking and read up carefully on any rules that editors say you have broken. Unfortunately when he wrote,

"If you start getting more warnings and anyone gets testy with you, please let me know, and can see what is going on." (10:03, 21 April 2020)

this person has selectively read that they have carte blanche to do whatever they want. This has lead to further numerous instances of maliciously removing encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view to suit their bias opinion under what they believe is condensing, poor English, only English cited sources and dead links to name a few. When I confronted this person I was met with ownership of content and bullying language as this person now believes they have to administrators backing him/her and the perception of power. I wrote to David Tornheim about my concerns, but he has not responded and Materialscientist has a "busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries." sign on their talk page.

I went to Teahouse looking for a third opinion with ColinFine stating that he has not looked at the edits and this is a content dispute.

So I am asking for help to stop this maliciously removing encyclopedic content from this page and several others, they are not improving this page at all because if they were they wouldn't be deleting the same passages and references used in the Nederlands Featured article of the same name. Kai Lau (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not editing in "Nederlands Featured article of the same name". I'm only curtailing content in the English article to make stuff more concise. Not that much information were removed and they're just the non-vital ones.Pestick (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I took a look. I believe I returned article to "status quo ante". I have encouraged you to both discuss your edits on the talk page of the article. Per WP:BRD, when a WP:BOLD change is reverted, one should not revert again, but instead discuss on the talk page. I am not taking a side in this dispute. I will try to look at the talk page & I might state my preference of keep vs. remove. It would probably be better if you found others who are more interested in this subject to break ties when you can't agree. I do agree with ColinFine that it is a content dispute, and that Pestick is not vandalizing the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

DRN Clerkbot remedied

Thanks to @Galendalia: for finally providing a detailed report other than "It's broken" to help me understand that the Bot was not updating the case status portion of the template and marking everything as "new" even when it wasn't. A change on Wikimedia Tools required converting from Python 2 to Python 3 which had the unfortunate side effect of removing a programming construct. Once I figured out that problem I put in a quick patch that will be updating the color status. Hasteur (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You are awesome! I see it working now :) Thank you so much! Galendalia CVU Member \ 21:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I love the new color status!! Thank you. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

TOC Issue

Hello,

I am not sure who the coordinator is or who has access to the actual templates/coding. But I noticed that when I collapse the TOC it causes a format layout issue.

  • When the TOC is expanded it looks fine screenshot
  • When it is collapsed it moves things around and looks unsightly screenshot

Thanks,Galendalia CVU Member \ 20:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC) DRN Volunteer

@Galendalia: - Is it better now? --John B123 (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)