This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gloss (talk | contribs) at 19:50, 12 February 2015 (→Survivor: Worlds Apart: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:50, 12 February 2015 by Gloss (talk | contribs) (→Survivor: Worlds Apart: 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 |
Dispute Resolution (inactive) | ||||
|
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 The result of the discussion was withdrawn without prejudice.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 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 |
Battle of the Somme
The Battle of the Somme thread is showing as new, when it should be resolved. Is this a bug in the template, or confusion about how to use the template, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- I closed the Battlestar Galactica thread, and it is now showing as new rather than General Close. Same question. Is this a bug in the template, or confusion about how to use the template, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- User:Robert McClenon, you may not be making all the needed changes for the bot to recognize the close.The three steps are:
- Remove the line telling the bot not to archive until XYZ date
- Place the words: Closed, Resolved or Failed after the words: DR Case Status|
- Place {{DRN archive top|reason= XXXXXXX ~~~~}} and {{DRN archive bottom}} at the top and bottom of the case. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Volunteers needed for two cases
These two cases have been open for almost 7 days and still have no moderator:
- Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Pope_Joan
Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Ahmad Sanjar
Thanks, --Biblioworm 16:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
- I've closed Ahmad Sanjar because there's been no response from the other editor in a week. I think that there are essential parties also missing from the Pope Joan request, too, but I've not yet had time to go back and review the preceding discussion to be sure. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- The Pope Joan case is now in progress. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Survivor: Worlds Apart
It appears that there has been very little discussion. User:Biblioworm - Can the case be closed? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: Done. --Biblioworm 03:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Do you guys always close threads before the 30 hours later mark? Wow, I didn't think I had to rush at the speed of light over here to make a comment. There were two comments made by two different users and I was putting together my thoughts before making a comment. Too late now, I suppose. Let the edit warring continue since I wasn't fast enough. Gloss 03:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- You are asking the wrong question. You hadn't discussed the issue at Talk: Survivor: Worlds Apart extensively before heading to this board. That implies that you may not have read the preconditions for this board, which include extensive discussion at talk pages. That is required because we have only a few active volunteer moderators, and there are many contentious threads in Misplaced Pages, so we only use our resources on those that clearly need help. Go back to the article talk page and try discussing rather than edit-warring. It is always better to discuss than to edit-war. Discussion sometimes avoids the need to use the limited resources of this noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- User:Gloss, Edit warring is a behavioral concern. If that is the main issue then another reason why the case was not a good fit here. If the edit warring continues and the parties refuse to discuss on the page then file at WP:AN3 to get resolution. If the parties stop edit warring and discuss on the talk page that's best. If after significant discussion there is no resolution then you can refile the case here to discuss the content issue exclusively. I hope that is helpful. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- User:Keithbob, I didn't open up the discussion, I was invited to comment and never got the chance. But I really don't care, this was resolved over a week ago. Gloss 19:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- User:Gloss, Edit warring is a behavioral concern. If that is the main issue then another reason why the case was not a good fit here. If the edit warring continues and the parties refuse to discuss on the page then file at WP:AN3 to get resolution. If the parties stop edit warring and discuss on the talk page that's best. If after significant discussion there is no resolution then you can refile the case here to discuss the content issue exclusively. I hope that is helpful. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- You are asking the wrong question. You hadn't discussed the issue at Talk: Survivor: Worlds Apart extensively before heading to this board. That implies that you may not have read the preconditions for this board, which include extensive discussion at talk pages. That is required because we have only a few active volunteer moderators, and there are many contentious threads in Misplaced Pages, so we only use our resources on those that clearly need help. Go back to the article talk page and try discussing rather than edit-warring. It is always better to discuss than to edit-war. Discussion sometimes avoids the need to use the limited resources of this noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Do you guys always close threads before the 30 hours later mark? Wow, I didn't think I had to rush at the speed of light over here to make a comment. There were two comments made by two different users and I was putting together my thoughts before making a comment. Too late now, I suppose. Let the edit warring continue since I wasn't fast enough. Gloss 03:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
IP editors
What is the policy on participation in moderated dispute resolution by IP addresses? Three of the parties to Pope Joan are unregistered editors, and one of them has changed their IP address since the case was filed. (Many unregistered editors don't understand dynamic assignment of IP addresses.) Changes in IP addresses complicate resolving an already complicated dispute that has many parties. Is there any special guidance about IPs? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- We have no policy or guidance on that, though I certainly agree that it's a problem. At least a couple of us here have experimented with offering to take a case but only if the IP editors create accounts and only edit using those accounts. That's certainly within your rights as a volunteer: conditioning your participation on the disputant's agreement to do something. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- My own thinking is that it wouldn't be fair to the registered editors to decline the case, but I am willing to drop the IPs if their address shift. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Volunteer not on line since 31 Jan?
Fyi, User:Bejnar, our volunteer, has not been on WP since 31 Jan to respond to the information we have provided re General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy. Is this normal? Should we sit and wait, or could someone else pick it up? Thanks. PeterEastern (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- I see that it has been two-and-one-half days. I don't know whether that is long enough to be considered a problem, but will let User:Biblioworm decide whether you should wait, or whether another volunteer moderator is needed. I will, for now, give you the advice that I give when opening a thread. Be civil and concise. There have been significant civility violations on this board, and some of the posts are long and difficult to read. The moderator is trying to get you to listen to each other to try to improve the article. That requires discussing content rather than contributors. Stop complaining about the quality of posts by other editors. Those complaints add anger and add words. For now, we will wait for User:Bejnar to return, but remember to be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding. I am 100% aware of where the discussion is going off the rails. I don't intend to contribute anything else until prompted to do so. Will drop another note on this thread if a few more days go by without any response from Bejnar. We much appreciate the important work you do here. Thank you. PeterEastern (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- I've messaged Bejnar on his talk page. I suppose that someone else can take over if he doesn't reply in a day or two. --Biblioworm 21:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Fyi, it has now been another 2 days and Bejnar has still not come back online. No edits since 31 Jan. PeterEastern (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding. I am 100% aware of where the discussion is going off the rails. I don't intend to contribute anything else until prompted to do so. Will drop another note on this thread if a few more days go by without any response from Bejnar. We much appreciate the important work you do here. Thank you. PeterEastern (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry I was away so long. My life took a sudden strange direction. --Bejnar (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Good to have you back and I hope if the strange direction is exciting it persists and if it was negative it is better or goes away soon. SPACKlick (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- A few days ago I put a 24 hour closing notice on this case because I was unaware of this discussion. My apologies if I complicated the matter. Anyhow, glad Bejnar is back on the job! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Pope Joan
After I accepted the case, the six registered editors and three unregistered editors have not made statements. I have put new DRN notices on their talk pages. If I don't hear from them in 48 hours, I will close the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think that's a good policy especially if they have been editing during that period. Then it's clear they are being non-participatory. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)