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 Keithbob (talk | contribs) at 20:08, 12 February 2015 (→Survivor: Worlds Apart: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:08, 12 February 2015 by Keithbob (talk | contribs) (→Survivor: Worlds Apart: cmt)(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
Miscellany for deletionThis 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 The result of the discussion was withdrawn without prejudice.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:
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 

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:
  1. Remove the line telling the bot not to archive until XYZ date
  2. Place the words: Closed, Resolved or Failed after the words: DR Case Status|
  3. 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:

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)
Good, glad it got worked out. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:08, 12 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)
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)
Category: