Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Iazyges (talk | contribs) at 03:16, 12 August 2016 (→Dispute not handled appropriately?). 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 The result of the discussion was withdrawn without prejudice.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

Can't post

See Misplaced Pages talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request#Unable to create request. Cross posting here because that talk page might not be watchlisted. Felsic2 (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The script that is being used to create new requests is new. Who does the maintenance on it? I am getting the same problem (wheel cycles for a long time) as the reporter. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I was about to try to create an entry manually, but there's a warning about not doing anything until a volunteer has posted the original request. Felsic2 (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Who is maintaining the script? Creating an entry manually sometimes causes bad things to happen. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The fix has been published; everything should be working now. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 02:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I just posted a test case and it posted correctly. Thanks to Enterprisey for the fix. Felsic2 should try reposting his request. — TransporterMan (TALK) 07:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC) (Current DRN Coordinator)

It worked. Thanks all. Felsic2 (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. It worked. Now waiting for responses from the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, that didn't work out as I'd hoped. But thanks for your time and effort. Felsic2 (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. As a regular volunteer here, I would almost always prefer to see cases resolved at this noticeboard, and am disappointed when editors don't want to discuss here, but discussion here, like most forms of content resolution, is voluntary. The next step may be formal mediation, but that is not much more likely to work than did informal mediation here, or a Request for Comments, or arbitration enforcement. (If you don't know what arbitration enforcement is, that is probably good, because you probably don't really want to know.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I put in a filing at WP:AE, where I mentioned this case and your name. Once that's settled I guess I'll request formal mediation. Felsic2 (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Need Moderators

Two threads need moderators. Volunteers are asked to open the two threads that are waiting for moderators. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I just opened one of them. It is nice to get back to it after taking a break for a while. I was getting a bit burned out but now am refreshed and eager to help them resolve the dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Is archiving a live discussion a form of edit warring?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

When trying to sort out a content issue, an editor tries to stifle Talk Page discussion by immediately archiving the discussion, saying that the "discussion is closed". Is this edit warring? Is there a suitable way to deal with this tactic? Santamoly (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

This inquiry — which is off-topic here — has been answered on the editor's user talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 02:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@TransporterMan, can you explain further? Is there a better page for dispute "definition" questions? You haven't answered on my Talk Page; have you answered on someone else's Talk Page? Thanks! Santamoly (talk) 04:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC

Santamoly is talking about Talk: Pokémon Go#The CIA - bottling up the discussion!, in which four different editors (Czar (talk · contribs), Anarchyte (talk · contribs), Sergecross73 (talk · contribs) and myself) have closed a discussion early, because Santamoly failed to bring up new sources. soetermans. 07:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I advise everyone here to ignore the above and refuse to answer any further questions.

At the very top of this page it clearly states "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dispute resolution noticeboard page".

Anything other than discussing improvements to the dispute resolution noticeboard page needs to be taken elsewhere (WP:DRR is a good place to start), and we should not answer here because doing that encourages more off-topic discussions. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Commenting on Content, Not Contributors

Guy Macon wrote, on the project page: 'DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors. If anyone has a problem with this, let me know and we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer.' I mostly agree, but disagree only in the idea that any dispute resolution volunteer should even consider accepting a case in which one of the editors wants to discuss other editors. I would like to emphasize that, in my opinion, no editor should ever be focusing on the behavior of other editors. Guy is right. If there really is a content dispute and editors are willing to discuss content, talking about content may make any conduct issues, such as stubbornness, go away. If there really is a dispute that is primarily about conduct, this isn't the right place, and isn't even the least wrong place. The least wrong place to discuss editor conduct is either WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I would say that this is something that most of the volunteers here would agree with to a greater or lesser extent, Robert McClenon. I know that this was one reason that I liked to both watch cases unfold here, and to rarely take on a case when needed or in an area of interest (despite my drop off the radar). Hopefully more of the editors that bring their cases here read that before trying to use DRN and then being redirected, though that can be helpful as well. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 14:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

We are saying the same thing. Some volunteers say it more strongly than others. My only issue with what User:Guy Macon said was that implied that if an editor wants to talk about other editors, there might be volunteer who will allow it. There might, but we shouldn't encourage volunteers to permit discussion of the behavior of other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Really good comments. I think I will take the "If anyone has a problem with this, let me know and we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer" language out of my standard opening. Maybe I should add "If anyone has a problem with me as a mediator, let me know and we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer" at the end? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Dispute not handled appropriately?

Was this case handled appropriately: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Expulsion_of_Cham_Albanians

It was essentially opened and then closed within a few hours. I would have preferred if the discussion went on so I could clarify a few points. Also, it seems, at least to me, that the volunteer is under the impression that he/she is an arbitrator.

Could it be reopened? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Responding for myself, the DRN isn't really the place for this, you went to the NOR, they presumably told you no, you came here, and would not be reasoned with in the face of facts, I do not think I am an arbitrator, as I mentioned i cannot force you to follow the instructions, I can only ask the admin to punish you if you dont. Also it only took an hour, the issue was very simple, You asked if it was OR, it was not, thus the case ended there. As I mentioned the DRN probably isnt the right place to go in the first place, I would again you recommend arbitration or mediation, as they are capable of making binding decisions. Iazyges (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution noticeboard