Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Robert McClenon (talk | contribs) at 01:02, 27 January 2015 (→Closing Threads: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 The result of the discussion was withdrawn without prejudice.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

Volunteers needed for four cases

• Caliphate (second call)
• Friedrich Goldmann
• Mounir Majidi
• Boko Haram

Please take these cases if you can. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

I'm a party to the Boko Haram one (a slam dunk I think) and edit the Caliphate page already. So going to pass for the moment.Legacypac (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I can take Caliphate or Boko Haram. I would prefer Caliphate as being one of the more contentious cases that I like to work on, but I was under the impression that there is productive discussion on the article talk page and it was too early for a DRN case. Did I miss something? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me take a look at Friedrich Goldmann. 3O has already failed to bring consensus, so this may be beyond my mediating abilities but let me take a bit and try and digest the issues (they are about influences on an artist and what/how/where they should be included/not). I'll answer here soon, I've done a lot of RfC's and ghosting these DRs but haven't yet led one. EBY (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I can take Boko Haram. DocHeuh (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

My bad. Mounir Majidi isn't ready for a volunteer as the responding party has not yet made an opening statement. Thanks to everyone who is taking cases! Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Am I correct in assuming that a volunteer who is actively working a dispute can reasonably ignore the notice that there is a backlog, because it isn't expected that a volunteer will handle more than one dispute at a time? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

No one is required to do more than they care to do, but a volunteer can certainly handle more than one case at a time if they care to do so. It's entirely up to the volunteer to do anything from zero to infinity (or beyond, if you're Buzz Lightyear). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I will try to work one dispute at a time, and will ignore the backlog notice if I have an active dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, TransporterMan, I'm taking Friedrich Goldmann. I may give a shout if I need oversight, especially since this looks like a pretty entrenched skirmish. EBY (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm swamped with real life stuff but thanks to all of you for pitching in. Go Team! !-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll take Caliphate. I'm not sure if I've edited it before, but I think that would be immaterial either way. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for Overview and Advice

I would appreciate a more experienced moderator taking a quick look at the Mexicans of European Origin dispute and my handling of it. It isn't clear to me what in particular the two parties want changed in the actual text of the article, because they seem to want to talk about philosophy, which does make a difference, but the real question is what the article should say. I know that my job is to facilitate having mutually satisfactory wording. Since they don't get to the wording level, should I try to propose a compromise wording, or is that more than the moderator should do? Should I again ask them each to submit draft language? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to have time to actually dig through it right now, but it's always acceptable to require them to provide drafts (or, if they've been EW'ing over it, diffs) and to decline to move forward until that's done. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Robert McClenon, I scanned the discussion and you are doing an excellent job. One pointer I would give is I always require the participants to define and agree on what is being disputed right at the beginning of the discussion and I don't proceed until that is done. If they disregard my request for a clear, succinct description then I put them on notice that I'm going to close the DRN if they don't comply in 24-48 hours. What you don't want at DRN is a replay of the talk page where the two editor go round and round without any structure. So in answer to your question, yes you should require them to be succinct, to be specific and to stay on topic. Further, yes it is OK to propose a compromised wording. Ping me on my talk page if you need or want any further input. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposing an RFC

There appear to be two areas of disagreement. One of them is the inclusion of an adjective in the lede. The two parties do not agree as to whether it should be there. Moderated dispute resolution cannot begin when any other dispute resolution, including Requests for Comment are in progress. My question is: Can one of the conclusions of moderated dispute resolution be that a content issue should be resolved by a Request for Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Certainly. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

One More Question: Archival

If the discussion of a particular disputed article gets long, can the moderator archive the earlier rounds, or are there procedural reasons why it needs to stay open on the noticeboard?

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The archiving is done by bot and trying to do an early, partial archive would likely screw up a lot of stuff. So I'd say no. However, You could 'hat' or 'collapse' any sections you want to using {{collapsetop}} and {{collapsebottom}} -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I will hat the older discussions. Hatting is usually used for off-topic stuff, but it is also applicable to stuff that is still on-topic but historical. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at template:cot as an alternative to template:hat for collapsing older discussions. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. In this case I do want to hat the older discussions rather than collapse them, because anything that can be added to them can be added to later rounds. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional info Guy. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator position will be vacant as of February 1, 2015

The coordinator position for February, 2015-March, 2015, is vacant. Would someone who has been recently active as a volunteer here please step up to take the position? If you care to do so, simply fill in your signature here. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC) (current coordinator)

DRN ClerkBot downtime

FYI: Beacause Tool Labs is having "special" maintenance and as such DRN clerk bot (which updates Template:DRN case status) will not be updating the template on the 4 hour rotation. Hasteur (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Administrators Noticeboard discussion

There is a discussion at WP:AN#Request for Interaction ban with Technical13 regarding myself and Technical 13 that revolves around bot usage. As DRN is served by my bots, volunteers here may be interested in commenting. Hasteur (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding a Party

Two editors originally requested dispute resolution on Battle of the Somme. Now one of them has said that a third editor should be involved. That seems like it should be done, but what is the procedure for adding a party to a discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Just add them to the participant list, provide a section for their opening statement, and notify them. No particular procedure or protocol. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Replacement volunteer needed.

I have had medical issues requiring hospitalization, and need someone to take over the Meghan Trainor case. Please convey my apologies to the editors involved. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Will let them know. Hope you're not doing too badly and are well soon. Volunteers? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Since three of the editors on this article have been blocked for 48 hours, and since there is discussion at WP:ANI, should the volunteer replacement simply fail the moderation rather than resume the moderation? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Since Battle of the Somme appears to be slowing down (does that mean that only a few hundred men are being killed each day), I am willing to take Meghan Trainor. The editors are off block now, but I will consider whether to do a general close due to edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Review requested

User:TransporterMan or another experienced mediator, I've just had to render a decision in the first case I took, Friedrich Goldmann 23Influences and I had to come down harder than I expected because it had gone tendentious. I would just love a second pair of eyes because this was a stretch (a good one!) outside my comfort zone and I'm second-guessing. Thanks EBY (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is my opinion as an inexperienced mediator. I think that, far from being too hard, you were relatively easy. The two editors both used a lot of pixels commenting on the other contributor, complaining about each other, as well as discussing content. Also, the last statement by one of the participants was very long. I agree that they were getting tendentious. Unfortunately, I think that is likely to be a common problem, that they come here because they haven't been able to settle a content dispute, but a common reason for the inability to settle the content dispute is that they are stubborn. I agree that you had reason to be hard on them, because they were too busy being hard with each other. That is my inexperienced opinion. Maybe a more experienced mediator can give more specific comments or other advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Another Question

One of the issues about Battle of the Somme appears to require an RFC. There are other questions that, in my opinion, can continue. However, I see in the recent past that this group declines to take a case if an RFC is pending. Would publishing an RFC on whether to include a phrase in the lede section of the article make moderated discussion of other issues about the article impossible? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

No, that's well within your toolbag as a mediator. You shouldn't allow the discussion on the point going to RFC to continue at DRN, however. You also need to decide whether you will just cut off discussion on that point and leave it up to the disputants to decide whether or not to file the RFC or whether you will file it on their behalf. One thing you can do here is to get everyone to agree on the way the RFC will be stated, as that often proves to be controversial. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue was clear. It had to do with whether to include a particular phrase in a sentence in the lede section of the article. I filed the RFC on behalf of the disputants and will let them make the cases for inclusion of the phrase and for exclusion of the phrase, and I mentioned the RFC in the Military History project (which is a very active project and is likely to provide a reasonable number of previously uninvolved editors who may nonetheless know something about World War One. I have asked the participants whether there are any other issues that need to be resolved. If so, we will discuss them. If that is the only issue, it can be resolved as pending the outcome of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Changed a Title

I took the liberty of changing the title of a dispute awaiting acceptance. It had referred to a user's talk page where there was discussion of the issue. I changed it to Northern Province, Sri Lanka. I don't know whether the case should be accepted, but it isn't about a user's talk page but an article about a place. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible bug in intrapage linking?

I stumbled on a curious intra-page link behavior while trying to compare two different revisions of the main project page. It may be a bug(let) in how the "Case" table in this page is constructed.

In most regular articles, when looking at an earlier version of a page, intra-page links point to the target in question "on this page". In other words, the link text contains only the # symbol followed by the target name. So for example, to point to a section called "Criticisms", the link text would be something like ]. That means that if you are reading version N of an article and you click an intra-page link, you stay within version N. I think that is the expected and correct behavior.

However, in this WP:DRN article (or "Project page"), in the big "Case" table just below the Welcome banner, earlier versions give the full path of the intra-page link. So, for example, instead of having a link text of:

]

it appears as:

]

As a result, clicking on the link in version N takes you to the required section but in the current version of the article, not the section within version N. I suspect that's not what is intended.Thomask0 (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Hasteur: I think this is your baliwick. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Thomask0: I don't see what's broken. {{DRN case status}} is the template that is pulled in which pulls in {{DRN case status/row}}. It uses the shorterform link. From my testing it does not reload the page, but instead hops you to the right section. Also take into account that the DRN case status could be on individual user's dashboards so keeping the linkages as they are now is a benefit. Some concrete examples would be helpful. Hasteur (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Meghan Trainor

Dispute resolution has failed. One editor not only disagrees with the use of the term singer-songwriter but also appears to have doubts about using the RFC process. Should I request the locking admin to leave the page locked, or to unlock it? I won't be surprised if this goes back to WP:ANI. Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

No, no, no. I'm just saying I have my doubts, I'm not saying absolutely not. Sorry I wasn't clear. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

And why would you close without everyone commenting? I know this has been on the table for a while because the previous moderator had to bow out, but why such a hurry to close the discussion? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Your answer did not make me optimistic that an RFC was the way, but it was the only way forward. The fact that three of the editors got blocked for edit-warring while the case was open did not make me optimistic about the ability to resolve the case. However, an RFC was the only way forward. I cannot force the views of some editors on others. Only the community can establish consensus. No RFC, no resolution. If you want to post an RFC, go ahead. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Would the normal course have been for you to file an RfC?

Like I said above, I wasn't saying I absolutely wouldn't want an RfC, I just wasn't sure if it would be informed or unbiased. My reason for feeling that way is only because I wouldn't want to see an article - any article - with completely incorrect content (which calling Trainor singer-songwriter would be). It's like calling an Osteopath a Medical Doctor: they do essentially the same thing, but at the same time, they don't, and one is actually an O.D. and the other a true M.D. Asking a group of people who don't know the difference if it's okay to call the O.D. an M.D. seems illogical to me. But, maybe I should just have faith in the editors discussing? I don't know -- that's why I expressed my doubts. But I never said, "No way, no how" as you have characterized my response.

Still, I'm confused as to how this was closed so quickly and abruptly. And without everyone involved commenting. Doesn't seem as if this was done correctly. But, maybe I'm wrong all around. I've never taken part in a DRN prior to this instance. I'd appreciate some communication from you beyond your response above, Robert McClenon. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Your continuing complaints are tendentious. Now I understand why some experienced and respected editors, such as User:Coretheapple, want you sanctioned. You have just come off a WP:ANI thread, in which several editors wanted you either topic-banned or banned, and are just coming off a block, and are complaining about the DRN process, my decision to close the thread. First, there is no normal course for DRN; moderators are given considerable leeway. (I think that more guidance would be useful, but that is my opinion.) A general close is a very common result for many reasons. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It isn't clear what you wanted the moderator to do. Maybe you wanted the moderator to make a content decision that, using the current definition, although some participants think that the current definition is obsolete, Trainor is not a singer-songwriter and close the thread; probably not. Maybe you wanted the moderator to bully the participants into accepting your content judgment; probably not. Maybe you wanted the moderator to hold the discussion in hold to give you the liberty of time to make up your mind as to whether to use an RFC. That appears to be what you are saying, that I should have just waited for you to decide. You didn't ask me to wait. You just said that you didn't know. The only ways forward would have been: for the editors to agree, which they didn't; for the moderator to make a content decision, which isn't the way DRN works; or an RFC. You weren't sure about the RFC, and you didn't ask me to wait for you to make up your mind (and I don't know if I would have). Robert McClenon (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you re-read your own comments and see if you can see that, from my standpoint, you are projecting an enormous sense of "entitlement", that you expect other editors to make Misplaced Pages work your way. I see that sense of "entitlement" in your continuing complaints (as well as in your gaming the system on whether you were topic-banned). Robert McClenon (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I welcome comments from any uninvolved editors, especially from other uninvolved volunteer moderators. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Not complaints: questions and confusion. On my part as well as yours. Like I said, My comments were misunderstood, but I guess that wasn't enough to reverse your decision to close. Editors are volunteers too, after all, but we are treated as bad employees that the union won't allow to be fired. Apparently, we are expected to get it right all the time - no margin of error - and if not, we're considered bothersome, tendentious, acting as if we are entitled, and incompetent. You say you can see why Coretheapple doesn't like me, well I can see why going to DRN is a complete waste of time. Another lesson learned for me: have no faith in Misplaced Pages processes. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

One of the earliest functions of DRN is to evaluate a dispute and to refer it to a better dispute resolution venue if the volunteer feels that it would most benefit from such a referral more than it would from discussion here. Referrals are especially appropriate in disputes which are complicated due to fixed positions or due to the number of participants. This seems to be exactly that kind of situation and I fully support Robert in this decision. If the RFC does not resolve the matter, it can come back here or to some other form of dispute resolution. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Volunteers needed

The volunteer handling the Battlestar Galactica case has withdrawn and a replacement is needed. Any takers? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC) (coordinator)

I am willing to take the Battlestar Galactica case. However, I think that by now I may have a reputation as a volunteer who is willing to punt when the parties don't reach agreement. Should I take it anyway? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I took it. If the participants don't make any progress after three tries, that is fourth down, and the proper response in American football is to punt. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, a volunteer is also needed for Northern Province, Sri Lanka. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look SPACKlick (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator position vacant

Though my current term as coordinator ends, in theory, on the 31st, I'm probably going to be offline on real world matters after about 23:00 UTC tomorrow, January 27. The coordinator position for February-March, 2015, has no takers and having just served two consecutive terms I don't care to do a third in a row (though I'm sure I'll take it again in the future). If no one else volunteers — sign up here and fill in your name here so it will transclude into the header — we're not going to have a coordinator for the next two months. Just sayin'... Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, well, I guess I'll take it in the next hour or two if no one else will. Going once, going twice... --Biblioworm 20:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Closing Threads

I see that threads can be closed as Closed, also known as a general close, as Failed, and as Resolved. What is the difference between a general close and a fail? How does the volunteer update the case for a resolution or a fail? Is there guidance to volunteers? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution noticeboard