Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:00, 10 March 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 The result of the discussion was withdrawn without prejudice.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.

Current DRN cases

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.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 20:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

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

_

_

Future archiving issue

I figured that I would raise this issue before it becomes problematic. As you all know, we utilize the auto parameter in the archive box in the header. Currently, we are at 87 archives, but after 100 it stops automatically inserting the links into the archive box (though the bot should continue to archive). The solution seems to be that we'll just have to insert those links manually, but not for a few months. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 19:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Will this be like the new millennium only worse? :-) Just kidding, it's good you've raised this issue. Maybe the more technical amongst us can remedy this before it happens. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha! At least I won't be around in 1,000 years. The way I see it, we could pile the 100 archives into a single page, titled "(prefix) June 27, 2011 - end date", (wow, would that be a lot of copy and pasting), have a few admins delete the current 100 pages and after which Lowercase sigmabot III can recreate them as needed. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Why does it stop after 100? Can it be done like RSN's? Eventually we may need to do what ANI does. (Having said that, I don't know how any of them do it. Heck, I'm not even sure at this moment how my own talk page does it, even though I set it up...) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea. I'll look into it further. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 17:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: Below is the code that RSN uses in their header:

{| class="wikitable" style="float:right;vertical-align:top;" | width="300" style="text-align:center;"| '''Search this noticeboard & archives''' |- |<inputbox> type=fulltext prefix=Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard break=yes width=40 searchbuttonlabel=Search </inputbox><center><hr style="width:95%" /></center> <center><small>{{archive list}}</small></center> |}

And this is what they use on the project page:

{{Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header}}{{User:MiszaBot/config |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |maxarchivesize = 250K |counter = 165 |minthreadstoarchive = 1 |algo = old(5d) |archive = Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d }}

Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 17:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

My knowledge of archiving is also very limited maybe User:Earwig can guide us on how to upgrade the archive system here to accept more pages and KBs.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Question

When we close a case are we allowed to change the status to 'close' despite this warning not to?

DR case status|open !-- Bot Case ID (please don't modify): 1084 --

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Just don't change or remove the stuff in the angle brackets, just change open in the curly brackets to closed, resolved, or failed as appropriate. Replace the do not archive stuff with the DRN archive top tag and don't forget the bottom tag. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Roger that! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Archive tag placement

@Everyone: Please note that the {{DRN archive top}} tag should go on the first line under the {{DR case status}} and {{drn filing editor}} lines, replacing the

<!-- ] xx:xx, xx Xxxxx 20xx (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->

material. That way the filing status and the filing editor's names show up in the archive. There's a bit of overwriting if the editor's name is long, but that doesn't hurt anything. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder T-Man. Mark up is not my strongest skill :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution process

Hi, I have a question about having a dispute resolution process. Once the case is filed, the parties are named and mediation is agreed to, is the discussion limited to those parties and the mediator? Because in a long-lasting talk page debate that occurred in November and December, at a certain point, new accounts appeared to weigh in on the subject in question and they just as quickly disappeared. Later, one side claimed they had won consensus because of a head count of editors when some of these contributors' participation in the discussion was marginal.

I want to make sure everyone who was a participant in that month-long debate is mentioned as a prospective party to the mediation but I don't think it would be helpful to have newly created accounts appear and take sides. Is my understanding correct or can anyone show up and participate in a mediation once it gets under way?

Thanks! Liz 22:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Liz, I'm a regular volunteer here. If I catch the drift of your question, I think that the answer is that the proper parties to a mediation, either here or at some other dispute resolution forum, are those who can resolve the dispute. If new parties are constantly coming and going in the dispute at the article and article talk page, their absence in the mediation can sabotage any consensus which is reached by those who are in the mediation. Indeed, the request for dispute resolution may be declined for that reason. In that situation, your best bet is likely to be a request for comments rather than some form of mediated DR. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a good point Liz and I'm glad you are bringing it up for discussion. It seems you are asking a question about formal mediation of which T-Man is a committee member. My understanding is that formal mediation is a closed system and limited to anyone already involved in the dispute and not open to newcomers. Also, unlike DRN, the outcome of formal mediation is binding. Is that right T-Man? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The outcome is not binding at MEDCOM see MedCom Policy:,

Mediated agreements are not binding. Any agreement achieved through mediation is not permanently binding. If consensus is achieved in a mediation case, the parties are expected by the community to honour the result. However, the consensus does not apply to articles outside the scope of the mediation, nor does it last permanently. Consensus can change.

(Emphasis and links as in original.) But even that much is based on the agreement of the parties to the solution which is worked out there.

While mediation is not binding, mediators are authorised to ask each party to explicitly indicate their consent to the result of the case.

The Mediation Guide goes on to explain:

Formal mediation is as binding as the parties make it. Whilst the mediator will often have the parties sign their agreement to whatever compromises are reached in the course of mediation, this is not an obligating or binding agreement and the parties cannot be punished for later breaking with these compromises. For that reason, all parties are strongly encouraged to only consent to compromises with which they are fully satisfied: it is a waste of time to say one agrees with a compromise when one will most probably decide otherwise three or four months later, and thus drag the dispute back to square one. The community may also hold as culpable a party who agrees to a reasonable mediation solution, then changes their mind and resumes edit warring or arguing repeatedly for their previously preferred state of the article; that would be outwith the committee's control.

Misplaced Pages has no process by which binding content decisions can be made. As for the closed nature of mediation, MEDCOM is more controlled than DRN, but I cannot imagine a mediator not allowing new parties into the mediation if their presence is needed to achieve a final resolution to the dispute. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Debian

In the Debian case, the filer made the following comment:

"Refusing to discuss is considered a conduct issue, so there are two threads in the incident noticeboard. I have been repeatedly advised to use content related resolution."

So, in my opinion, this should not be closed as being in discussion elsewhere.

BTW, my health has improved, so I will be able to be more active at DRN. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Guy, and welcome back, glad to hear you are feeling better healthwise :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully the IP has abandoned the prior discussions here and here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Good to have you back and glad you're better, Guy. For me closing a case due to a filing in a conduct forum is always a judgment call, and this is your case, your call. Good luck and best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Returning to DRN

I have relisted my name as a volunteer for the noticeboard. I will spend some time to review the guide.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, good to have you back, Mark. You've been missed. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Very problematic articles and biased users , literally vandalizing systematically an article for Propaganda

Greetings , let me start by saying that i know that the title might sound a bit harsh , however i believe what to claim to be absolutely true and even more than that . Let me also point out that i originate from Himara ( The article is about Himara ) . The evidence is so obvious , that it is almost mind blowing how much can someone change a content with BLANK , non existing sources .

I am copy pasting exactly a lead paragraph from the article > The region of Himarë is predominantly populated by an ethnic Greek community.

Now please check all the sources presented in the lead paragraph .

Let us start with source n.1 , which is .... BLANK and non existing . Source n.2 > is an image from a text of a dubious and maybe even non existing book ?! When is this text from , and in what context is the author saying that , furthermore is this book even existing ? Source n.3 > It is .... BLANK and non existing Source n.4 > Maybe the only reasonable source , BUT even that speaks about the contest and the fact that the Albanian goverment DOES NOT recognise it as a minority zone .

My problem is not that per se , but the fact that the abusive user Alexikoua has reverted all my legitimate and useful edits . If you go to Himara article , what i did is to change the sentence , to saying > The region of Himara is also populated by an ethnic greek minority < , furthemore i did provide the official election voting of 2013 where it was demonstrated that the greek minority party did take ONLY 25 % , with the remaining population voting for albanian parties , so i added after this sentence > This could help indentify the proportion of the greek speaking community <

I know that election results should not be in the lead paragraph . But given the fact that the original abusive and NON correct statement is there , i just gave another clue to the whole story .

This is just the tip of the iceberg , if you go to the talk page you will see that User Alexikoua is having muliple disputes with countless other persons about this in a period of 4 or even more years .

Furthemore i would like you to check if user Pinkbeast is a Sock puppet account of user alexikoua .

The article is greatly distorted and used for propagandistic purposes . Furthemore they have REVERTET ALL OF MY EDITS , so i have no other choice than contacting someone superior . Regards , Bonender (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Europa Publications Limited. Central and South-Eastern Europe 2004, Volume 5. Routledge, 2003. ISBN 978-1-85743-186-5, p. 78.
2. Cite error: The named reference Hammond1993 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. Economist Intelligence Unit. (Great Britain). Country report: Albania, Issue 1., 2001.
4. "Albania: The state of a nation" (PDF). ICG Balkans Report N°111. p. 15. Retrieved 2010-09-02. The coastal Himara region of Southern Albania has always had a predominantly ethnic Greek population.

• Dispute resolution noticeboard