This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Hi, I am a new volunteer and would like some suggestions.
Regards - Wikishagnik ( talk) 04:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
It's not even clear to me that there is an ongoing dispute. The editor who filed the request, BurritoBazooka, is the only person to have said anything about this issue on the talk page in three months, then the following day, without any discussion from anyone else, filed this request. The only other editor mentioned in the request as being involved has not said anything on the talk page in three months, has yet to give his opening remarks on this page despite being notified on his talk page, and has not edited at all in nearly three months; I don't think it's likely that he's going to appear to take part in the discussion.
This is the relevant talk page discussion Talk:UltraViolet_(system)#Obligatory POV discussion - all of the comments are months apart. I don't really know what ought to be said or done here - I'm very new to volunteering, but clearly it's not the usual case of an ongoing disagreement between two or more editors, and waiting for JimTheFrog to comment is unlikely to be fruitful. CarrieVS ( talk) 17:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
[irrelevant comments removed by commenter CarrieVS ( talk) 23:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)]
Ignore this section, I was just frustrated. CarrieVS ( talk) 23:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
There's been a discussion involving those users and that article here, but I can't figure out whether it's actually about this dispute. It seems to be about deleting comments on talk pages and some fiasco over 'fake' block notices that turned out to be a broken template, though it does bring up content issues. It closed with the discovery that the block notices were accidental, and without appearing to resolve the content issues. As well as that, it seems to be this one user (who filed the DRN request) against the world, and nobody seems to have anything but criticism for his contributions.
I'm half-convinced that the DRN thread should be closed as unsuitable. Could someone else have a look at the AN/I discussion and see what they think? CarrieVS ( talk) 23:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I am putting together a manual of style for volunteers. Please feel free to help add to it.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 09:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
We were this close to reaching a consensus on the Medical Uses of Silver thread, and the only dissenting voice got himself indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. Does this count as resolved or should I shut it as closed? CarrieVS ( talk) 20:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Right now, the FAQ (see above) says that it's okay to manually file. But is it really? I note that the bot adds a unique case identification number and some additional housekeeping coding to the top of the listing. Most of that has syntax which is pretty obvious and can simply be copied over from an existing listing and updated, but that's not true for the case identification number. I have on occasion simply listed the dispute using the listing form for the benefit of the parties, but that has the undesirable effect of listing me as the requesting party to the dispute. (If you're fast and lucky enough, you can change that in the listing before the status bot runs, but if you're slow or unlucky you can change it in the listing but will forever be listed as the requesting party in the status box.) I see at least four things we can do:
There are probably other possibilities about which I'm not aware since I'm coding-ignorant. Feel free to suggest them (or just fix it). I'm fine with any of those, though I'd prefer #2, 3, or 4. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
It looks like Cinema of Andhra Pradesh and Mail Online got archived without being officially closed. Does something need to be done to fix that somehow? Dreamyshade ( talk) 05:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
If you check Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 61 you may notice that the last two cases are not reachable by clicking on the links in the TOC. For example Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 61#Royal College, Colombo does not take you to the case. It looks like the last two cases got swallowed into the collapse box for a previous case, the one for Catherine of Alexandria. I looked to see if there was a closing or opening template missing, but could not resolve the mystery. I hope that someone who is familiar with the DRN templates might have a moment to look at this. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 16:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
David Bergman (journalist) was closed as resolved but has no signature on the closing.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 06:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The Indian astronomy case is not coming to a resolution. If a volunteer has any fresh ideas, that would be appreciated. -- Noleander ( talk) 03:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
User:Eng.Bandara, volunteer for the Syrian civil war thread, has been confirmed by CheckUser as a sock of User:Distributor108. What happens now? Do we start the mediation over again? Do we just pick up where the sock left off—or would that just be affording legitimacy to the sock? Are there NPOV concerns given the fact that the sockmaster was blocked for disruptive editing and a battleground mentality? Send help. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 06:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Could Talk:Medical uses_of_silver please be de-archived? I was sick for one week and it got archived during that time. I have informed the volunteer that I was sick. Ryanspir ( talk) 13:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
FYI I have commented on the relevance of the Leeds in vitro study to Quackwatch's characterization of ingested colloidal silver
here.
Zad
68
14:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
This DRN talk page is not the venue to further argue the dispute. It appears that the DRN volunteer community has, as I suggested, left this to CarrieVS's discretion to decide whether or not to reopen. Her decision at this point, based upon what is going on now, is not to do so and to allow discussion to continue on the article talk page. The disputants are free, if they care to do so, to try to move on to some other form of dispute resolution if they do not care for that decision, but the archived listing is apparently indefinitely closed at this point unless Carrie cares to restore it. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
15:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
16:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
16:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)I am afraid I will be taking a short Wikibreak. My heart is just not in this right now and it would be unfair to leave without asking another to handle the case please.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 08:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
The cases "Lists of tropical cyclone names", "List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes", "Francesca Hogi" and "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Kira" were probably created by the same user with multiple IPs and sockpuppet accounts. The first two at least seem appropriate, but the others look like trolling; can these last two just be closed or removed? Peter James ( talk) 18:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Can the "Power Rangers" case be closed as it has been discovered that a banned user's sockpuppet started it?— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 01:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi.
I see two volunteers having visited the topic and even one explicitly said he'd take it, but the case has no mediator after eight days. (Am I counting right? NVM.) Could someone please take the topic?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 16:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello again.
Another question: I see that the status of this case is now changed to NeedAssist, although mediator has joined in. Is it because the template has mistakenly specified NerdFighter as the mediator?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 21:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I wonder if I could ask a third question. How is the prospects of escalating this issue to WP:MedCom? Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 20:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
This dispute was closed as failed
|
---|
One of the disputants has requested that another volunteer handle this case, so I am withdrawing. If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 11:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Volunteer is requested to mediate topic under discussion. |
I just opened a dispute about Adolph Hitler. This is a topic which can become heated, so right from the start I am inviting any other interested volunteers to jump in and assist if needed. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 11:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
In response to the question in the title, where is "here"? HiLo48 ( talk) 02:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
|
Please take a look at the formatting of the Microsoft Office 2013 case in these two versions: Version One Version Two
I thinks we should standardize on the second version.
BTW, is it really important to keep the "Filed by" outside of the collapsed section? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
Apologies if this is not the right place to post this. I have not idea where to ask this question and have posted a similar question to the user pages of volunteers UseTheCommandLine and Guy Macon, who seem to be associated with the processing of this request in some way.
My request for dispute resolution was "quick closed for lack of sufficient discussion on the article talk page". This issue has been the subject of 7 exchanges totalling some 1700 or so words on the Article Talk page (under the lengthy subtitle "Some researchers who have tried to reveal ethical issues with clinical trials or who tried to publish papers that show harmful effects of new drugs or cheaper alternatives have been threatened by drug companies with lawsuits" and also under "Source query". An additional 6 exchanges on are shown on my user talk page, for a total of 13. I realize that the latter 6 should have been on the article Talk page, but this does not change the fact that we seem to be at an impasse.
I just wanted to check to be clear that you had seen all of these exchanges, and if so, what additional requirements are needed before we can get assistance with this. At this point, I think the interactions have become completely unproductive.
Thanks,
Alfred Bertheim ( talk) 05:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, I but I'm trying to do the right thing here, and it seems to me that we are descending into a reversion war. Certainly most all of my edits have been reverted, and from my point of view, my points dismissed out of hand. Not quite sure what to do here if you guys are not interested other than respond in kind, and I don't think that is productive. Suggestions?
I am new to this and am trying to behave according to Wikipedia standards, be productive, and follow the rules. I'm sorry if I've misunderstood the protocol here, but I don't think ridicule is helpful. My approach here may be naive, but it is well-intentioned and I'd appreciate it if that were respected.
Alfred Bertheim ( talk) 06:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my note nonetheless. Alfred Bertheim ( talk) 06:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering what others thought of a Conflict resolution strategy guide to go along with our Volunteer guide. I think we all have different tactics and ideas to resolving disputes that each of us could benifit from. Thoughts?-- Amadscientist ( talk) 01:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Etimo -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a procedure for use when there is unacceptable incivility in a listing:
STOP ALL DISCUSSION! This discussion is suspended until civility matters are resolved.
Incivility, conduct allegations, allegations of bias, conflict of interest, or sockpuppetry, and personal attacks are not permitted at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. In keeping with DRN procedures, all participants in this discussion are notified that this listing will be closed 48 hours after the date of this warning unless all participants edit their own comments to remove all references to or discussion of other editors. Do not edit other editor's comments. If you wish to comment or complain about another editor's conduct, bias, conflict of interest, or personal attacks, do so at the administrator's noticeboard, sockpuppet investigations, the conflict of interest noticeboard, file a user request for comments, or take appropriate action at some other conduct-related noticeboard, but do not do so here. This discussion is suspended until a regular DRN volunteer states that it may continue. Once the current problems have been removed, additional conduct allegations or incivility may cause this listing to be closed without additional notice. [signature and timestamp] |
Whaddauthink? Too much? Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
STOP INCIVILITY AND DISCUSSIONS OF BEHAVIOR!
Incivility, discussions of editor behavior, personal attacks, and allegations of bias, conflict of interest, or sockpuppetry are not permitted at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. In keeping with DRN procedures, all participants in this discussion are notified that no further discussion of behavior or conduct will be permitted. All editors are requested to remove comments they have posted which are incivil. If you wish to comment about another editor's behavior, do so at the administrator's noticeboard, sockpuppet investigations, conflict of interest noticeboard, or user request for comments. If incivility continues, DRN volunteers will refrain from assisting with the case, and the case will be closed without additional notice. [signature and timestamp] |
Query - This seems like a solution in search of a problem. Was there some particular DRN case that was a disaster that gave rise to this proposed notice? -- Noleander ( talk) 21:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
New draft:
Incivility, conduct allegations, allegations of bias, conflict of interest, or sockpuppetry, and personal attacks are not permitted at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. In keeping with DRN procedures, all participants in this discussion are notified that this listing will be closed 48 hours after the date of this warning unless all participants edit their own comments to remove all references to or discussion of other editors. Do not edit other editor's comments. Once the current problems have been removed, additional conduct allegations or incivility may cause this listing to be closed without additional notice. Comments or complaints about another editor's conduct, bias, conflict of interest, or personal attacks, may be made at the administrator's noticeboard, sockpuppet investigations, or the conflict of interest noticeboard or via a request for comments/user but may not be made here. [signature and timestamp] |
Better? Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard does not permit incivility or discussion of other editors' conduct. All participants in this discussion are notified that this listing will be closed 48 hours after the date of this warning unless all participants edit their own comments to remove all discussion of other editors. Do not edit other editors' comments. Comments about another editor's conduct can be made in another forum as described in the Dispute Resolution process. [signature and timestamp] |
Just thought of something: If there were a DRN case with, say, 4 parties, and one of them was obnoxious, and If this big warning were posted in the case, that party could deliberately terminate the case by simply posting some incivil comments after the warning. It seems odd to give a single party the power to terminate the case. Just thinking out loud. -- Noleander ( talk) 21:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard does not tolerate incivility or permit discussion of other editors' conduct.
All editors are requested to remove unacceptable comments that they, and only they, have posted. If disruption continues, volunteers may refrain from further assisting with this case, and it may be closed without additional notice. Please refer to the conduct resolution process for further information on user disputes. [signature and timestamp] |
This discussion is suspended pending review.
The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard does not tolerate incivility or permit discussion of other editors' conduct. All participants are requested to remove unacceptable comments that they, and only they, have posted within 72 hours of this notification. If any participants are not cooperative, this listing will otherwise be closed. Please refer to the conduct resolution process for further information on user disputes. [signature and timestamp] |
The current template uses the ambox which is restricted for article messages. The correct template for this is Template:Warning (we can still use the stop hand image):
{{{1}}} |
Just so we don't get screamed at.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 04:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
While I have a very high degree of respect for Guy, I think that he made an error by accepting the Adolph Hitler report. The issues here can't be separated from an editor conduct problem, which several of the involved editors (including myself) noted as part of the opening statements. Given this, I was really surprised that this was accepted given the previous history of similar reports I've seen (which have generally - and rightly - been quickly rejected), and Guy's well meaning and good faith attempts to limit the discussion only to content issues are a bit of a case of trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole. This approach has lead to the IMO absurd situation where an editor who's blatantly misrepresenting sources to push his view (which appears to be somewhat fringe), posting fairly dubious statements and then claiming that he didn't mean what he wrote can't be properly called on it, which renders the whole discussion somewhat pointless given that this is meant to be a good faith discussion about the content of sources. I note that the editor in question isn't being called on backtracking on his posts (eg, posting that Churchill caused mass starvation in Poland, and then claiming that he didn't mean this at all and was putting this forward only as an example of the type of argument to avoid...), despite the poisonous effect such conduct has on good faith discussions. I'm not going to take any further part in the discussion, and don't see how it's likely to end with a positive result. Nick-D ( talk) 10:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I concur with Nick's analysis that this case is misplaced here because it's not about sources but about user conduct. Guy, I too appreciate that you mean well, but in my opinion you have not handled this case very well for the following reasons:
You struck out all of Paul B's comments (and some of mine), which cautioned that this case would be difficult to resolve without reviewing and considering user conduct.
You opened the floor by injecting very inappropriate humour into the discussion—there's nothing wrong with adding some levity and you apologised for this, but it suggested to me that you are not very familiar with the subject at hand, which demands an exceeding amount of tact, especially from those who are supposed to be moderating the discussion.
You did not respond to Nick and my rebuttals of the synthesis allegation that had focused on the fact that the alleged synthesis had occurred in the lead, which by definition is supposed to summarise content succinctly and accurately.
Mystimwipe engaged in lengthy observations on user conduct in his comments to which you responded without noting this violation nor did you swiftly remove his/her user conduct observations as you did with Paul B's and my comments; you only did so when asked to do so.
When subjected to pressure from this user to omit or modify the sentence in the lead, you took his/her assertion that multiple editors have advocated for such change at face value and suggested your own alternative wording without providing a well thought-out rationale for why such a change is needed and what it would accomplish. Again, only after I queried you about who had submitted "repeated requests" for changes, you admitted that only one user had been making such request—this suggested to me that you mentally amplified the comments coming from this single user while dampening rebutting comments coming from multiple users.
In summary, I do appreciate your efforts here, but I do not see that you have shown evidence that you have sufficient insight into the breadth and complexity of the subject at hand and that you can conduct this discussion judiciously. I suggest to close the case as "failed" or that you recuse yourself from further discussion. Thank you. Malljaja ( talk) 14:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conflict Resolution#Request for comment Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Why does the page WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteer manual of style have the name "manual of style"? That is a rather inaccurate name - "style" implies it is limited to stylistic matters (capitalization, italics, etc). Also, including the phrase "manual of style" in the page name may imply to readers that this is part of the WP:Manual of style, which it is not. More importantly: about half the page (the entire "Opening a case" section) is process-oriented guidance on how to mediate. A better name would be "Volunteer guide" or "Volunteer manual". And why is there so much content overlap with the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering page? -- Noleander ( talk) 03:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I've restored the link at the top of the WP:DRN page (the link for volunteers to go to get instructions) to point to the original Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering .. which is a page about a year old, and that many editors have worked on. We should probably have more people review the new "style" page before we put a link to it in a prominent location at the top of the DRN page. Plus we should look at the overlap between the two and figure out what to do. -- Noleander ( talk) 04:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
And I see that you just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Conflict Resolution today. That appears to be nearly identical to the 2-year old project Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dispute_Resolution. I'm not trying to be annoying, but it looks like you are replicating things that already exist: first the DRN volunteer guideline page, and now the DR project. There is a shortage of volunteers in WP, and large backlogs of work to be done. It is best if we don't multiply the number of guidelines and projects unless there is a compelling reason. If the existing items are not meeting your needs, it is best to try to enhance them before replicating them. -- Noleander ( talk) 11:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I saw this discussion and viewed both the original guide and the new one created by Amadscientist. I'm pleased that a more comprehensive guide was created, in the second survey I ran some comments were made that the existing DRN volunteering guide lacked some details, and the new guide I feel is more substantial. I do think that having these on two separate pages would create confusion for volunteers. Not everyone is as good at dispute resolution as we are, and it can be a daunting task. Needing to read over two pages, IMHO, is too much. I've edited the volunteering page merging in most of the content from the new guide into the old one, then reverted my changes so they can be reviewed first. the version I propose we adopt. What do you all think? Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 10:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Hi, I am a new volunteer and would like some suggestions.
Regards - Wikishagnik ( talk) 04:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
It's not even clear to me that there is an ongoing dispute. The editor who filed the request, BurritoBazooka, is the only person to have said anything about this issue on the talk page in three months, then the following day, without any discussion from anyone else, filed this request. The only other editor mentioned in the request as being involved has not said anything on the talk page in three months, has yet to give his opening remarks on this page despite being notified on his talk page, and has not edited at all in nearly three months; I don't think it's likely that he's going to appear to take part in the discussion.
This is the relevant talk page discussion Talk:UltraViolet_(system)#Obligatory POV discussion - all of the comments are months apart. I don't really know what ought to be said or done here - I'm very new to volunteering, but clearly it's not the usual case of an ongoing disagreement between two or more editors, and waiting for JimTheFrog to comment is unlikely to be fruitful. CarrieVS ( talk) 17:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
[irrelevant comments removed by commenter CarrieVS ( talk) 23:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)]
Ignore this section, I was just frustrated. CarrieVS ( talk) 23:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
There's been a discussion involving those users and that article here, but I can't figure out whether it's actually about this dispute. It seems to be about deleting comments on talk pages and some fiasco over 'fake' block notices that turned out to be a broken template, though it does bring up content issues. It closed with the discovery that the block notices were accidental, and without appearing to resolve the content issues. As well as that, it seems to be this one user (who filed the DRN request) against the world, and nobody seems to have anything but criticism for his contributions.
I'm half-convinced that the DRN thread should be closed as unsuitable. Could someone else have a look at the AN/I discussion and see what they think? CarrieVS ( talk) 23:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I am putting together a manual of style for volunteers. Please feel free to help add to it.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 09:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
We were this close to reaching a consensus on the Medical Uses of Silver thread, and the only dissenting voice got himself indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. Does this count as resolved or should I shut it as closed? CarrieVS ( talk) 20:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Right now, the FAQ (see above) says that it's okay to manually file. But is it really? I note that the bot adds a unique case identification number and some additional housekeeping coding to the top of the listing. Most of that has syntax which is pretty obvious and can simply be copied over from an existing listing and updated, but that's not true for the case identification number. I have on occasion simply listed the dispute using the listing form for the benefit of the parties, but that has the undesirable effect of listing me as the requesting party to the dispute. (If you're fast and lucky enough, you can change that in the listing before the status bot runs, but if you're slow or unlucky you can change it in the listing but will forever be listed as the requesting party in the status box.) I see at least four things we can do:
There are probably other possibilities about which I'm not aware since I'm coding-ignorant. Feel free to suggest them (or just fix it). I'm fine with any of those, though I'd prefer #2, 3, or 4. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
It looks like Cinema of Andhra Pradesh and Mail Online got archived without being officially closed. Does something need to be done to fix that somehow? Dreamyshade ( talk) 05:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
If you check Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 61 you may notice that the last two cases are not reachable by clicking on the links in the TOC. For example Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 61#Royal College, Colombo does not take you to the case. It looks like the last two cases got swallowed into the collapse box for a previous case, the one for Catherine of Alexandria. I looked to see if there was a closing or opening template missing, but could not resolve the mystery. I hope that someone who is familiar with the DRN templates might have a moment to look at this. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 16:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
David Bergman (journalist) was closed as resolved but has no signature on the closing.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 06:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The Indian astronomy case is not coming to a resolution. If a volunteer has any fresh ideas, that would be appreciated. -- Noleander ( talk) 03:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
User:Eng.Bandara, volunteer for the Syrian civil war thread, has been confirmed by CheckUser as a sock of User:Distributor108. What happens now? Do we start the mediation over again? Do we just pick up where the sock left off—or would that just be affording legitimacy to the sock? Are there NPOV concerns given the fact that the sockmaster was blocked for disruptive editing and a battleground mentality? Send help. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 06:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Could Talk:Medical uses_of_silver please be de-archived? I was sick for one week and it got archived during that time. I have informed the volunteer that I was sick. Ryanspir ( talk) 13:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
FYI I have commented on the relevance of the Leeds in vitro study to Quackwatch's characterization of ingested colloidal silver
here.
Zad
68
14:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
This DRN talk page is not the venue to further argue the dispute. It appears that the DRN volunteer community has, as I suggested, left this to CarrieVS's discretion to decide whether or not to reopen. Her decision at this point, based upon what is going on now, is not to do so and to allow discussion to continue on the article talk page. The disputants are free, if they care to do so, to try to move on to some other form of dispute resolution if they do not care for that decision, but the archived listing is apparently indefinitely closed at this point unless Carrie cares to restore it. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
15:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
16:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
16:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)I am afraid I will be taking a short Wikibreak. My heart is just not in this right now and it would be unfair to leave without asking another to handle the case please.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 08:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
The cases "Lists of tropical cyclone names", "List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes", "Francesca Hogi" and "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Kira" were probably created by the same user with multiple IPs and sockpuppet accounts. The first two at least seem appropriate, but the others look like trolling; can these last two just be closed or removed? Peter James ( talk) 18:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Can the "Power Rangers" case be closed as it has been discovered that a banned user's sockpuppet started it?— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 01:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi.
I see two volunteers having visited the topic and even one explicitly said he'd take it, but the case has no mediator after eight days. (Am I counting right? NVM.) Could someone please take the topic?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 16:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello again.
Another question: I see that the status of this case is now changed to NeedAssist, although mediator has joined in. Is it because the template has mistakenly specified NerdFighter as the mediator?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 21:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I wonder if I could ask a third question. How is the prospects of escalating this issue to WP:MedCom? Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 20:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
This dispute was closed as failed
|
---|
One of the disputants has requested that another volunteer handle this case, so I am withdrawing. If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 11:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Volunteer is requested to mediate topic under discussion. |
I just opened a dispute about Adolph Hitler. This is a topic which can become heated, so right from the start I am inviting any other interested volunteers to jump in and assist if needed. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 11:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
In response to the question in the title, where is "here"? HiLo48 ( talk) 02:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
|
Please take a look at the formatting of the Microsoft Office 2013 case in these two versions: Version One Version Two
I thinks we should standardize on the second version.
BTW, is it really important to keep the "Filed by" outside of the collapsed section? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
Apologies if this is not the right place to post this. I have not idea where to ask this question and have posted a similar question to the user pages of volunteers UseTheCommandLine and Guy Macon, who seem to be associated with the processing of this request in some way.
My request for dispute resolution was "quick closed for lack of sufficient discussion on the article talk page". This issue has been the subject of 7 exchanges totalling some 1700 or so words on the Article Talk page (under the lengthy subtitle "Some researchers who have tried to reveal ethical issues with clinical trials or who tried to publish papers that show harmful effects of new drugs or cheaper alternatives have been threatened by drug companies with lawsuits" and also under "Source query". An additional 6 exchanges on are shown on my user talk page, for a total of 13. I realize that the latter 6 should have been on the article Talk page, but this does not change the fact that we seem to be at an impasse.
I just wanted to check to be clear that you had seen all of these exchanges, and if so, what additional requirements are needed before we can get assistance with this. At this point, I think the interactions have become completely unproductive.
Thanks,
Alfred Bertheim ( talk) 05:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, I but I'm trying to do the right thing here, and it seems to me that we are descending into a reversion war. Certainly most all of my edits have been reverted, and from my point of view, my points dismissed out of hand. Not quite sure what to do here if you guys are not interested other than respond in kind, and I don't think that is productive. Suggestions?
I am new to this and am trying to behave according to Wikipedia standards, be productive, and follow the rules. I'm sorry if I've misunderstood the protocol here, but I don't think ridicule is helpful. My approach here may be naive, but it is well-intentioned and I'd appreciate it if that were respected.
Alfred Bertheim ( talk) 06:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my note nonetheless. Alfred Bertheim ( talk) 06:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering what others thought of a Conflict resolution strategy guide to go along with our Volunteer guide. I think we all have different tactics and ideas to resolving disputes that each of us could benifit from. Thoughts?-- Amadscientist ( talk) 01:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Etimo -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a procedure for use when there is unacceptable incivility in a listing:
STOP ALL DISCUSSION! This discussion is suspended until civility matters are resolved.
Incivility, conduct allegations, allegations of bias, conflict of interest, or sockpuppetry, and personal attacks are not permitted at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. In keeping with DRN procedures, all participants in this discussion are notified that this listing will be closed 48 hours after the date of this warning unless all participants edit their own comments to remove all references to or discussion of other editors. Do not edit other editor's comments. If you wish to comment or complain about another editor's conduct, bias, conflict of interest, or personal attacks, do so at the administrator's noticeboard, sockpuppet investigations, the conflict of interest noticeboard, file a user request for comments, or take appropriate action at some other conduct-related noticeboard, but do not do so here. This discussion is suspended until a regular DRN volunteer states that it may continue. Once the current problems have been removed, additional conduct allegations or incivility may cause this listing to be closed without additional notice. [signature and timestamp] |
Whaddauthink? Too much? Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
STOP INCIVILITY AND DISCUSSIONS OF BEHAVIOR!
Incivility, discussions of editor behavior, personal attacks, and allegations of bias, conflict of interest, or sockpuppetry are not permitted at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. In keeping with DRN procedures, all participants in this discussion are notified that no further discussion of behavior or conduct will be permitted. All editors are requested to remove comments they have posted which are incivil. If you wish to comment about another editor's behavior, do so at the administrator's noticeboard, sockpuppet investigations, conflict of interest noticeboard, or user request for comments. If incivility continues, DRN volunteers will refrain from assisting with the case, and the case will be closed without additional notice. [signature and timestamp] |
Query - This seems like a solution in search of a problem. Was there some particular DRN case that was a disaster that gave rise to this proposed notice? -- Noleander ( talk) 21:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
New draft:
Incivility, conduct allegations, allegations of bias, conflict of interest, or sockpuppetry, and personal attacks are not permitted at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. In keeping with DRN procedures, all participants in this discussion are notified that this listing will be closed 48 hours after the date of this warning unless all participants edit their own comments to remove all references to or discussion of other editors. Do not edit other editor's comments. Once the current problems have been removed, additional conduct allegations or incivility may cause this listing to be closed without additional notice. Comments or complaints about another editor's conduct, bias, conflict of interest, or personal attacks, may be made at the administrator's noticeboard, sockpuppet investigations, or the conflict of interest noticeboard or via a request for comments/user but may not be made here. [signature and timestamp] |
Better? Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard does not permit incivility or discussion of other editors' conduct. All participants in this discussion are notified that this listing will be closed 48 hours after the date of this warning unless all participants edit their own comments to remove all discussion of other editors. Do not edit other editors' comments. Comments about another editor's conduct can be made in another forum as described in the Dispute Resolution process. [signature and timestamp] |
Just thought of something: If there were a DRN case with, say, 4 parties, and one of them was obnoxious, and If this big warning were posted in the case, that party could deliberately terminate the case by simply posting some incivil comments after the warning. It seems odd to give a single party the power to terminate the case. Just thinking out loud. -- Noleander ( talk) 21:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard does not tolerate incivility or permit discussion of other editors' conduct.
All editors are requested to remove unacceptable comments that they, and only they, have posted. If disruption continues, volunteers may refrain from further assisting with this case, and it may be closed without additional notice. Please refer to the conduct resolution process for further information on user disputes. [signature and timestamp] |
This discussion is suspended pending review.
The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard does not tolerate incivility or permit discussion of other editors' conduct. All participants are requested to remove unacceptable comments that they, and only they, have posted within 72 hours of this notification. If any participants are not cooperative, this listing will otherwise be closed. Please refer to the conduct resolution process for further information on user disputes. [signature and timestamp] |
The current template uses the ambox which is restricted for article messages. The correct template for this is Template:Warning (we can still use the stop hand image):
{{{1}}} |
Just so we don't get screamed at.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 04:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
While I have a very high degree of respect for Guy, I think that he made an error by accepting the Adolph Hitler report. The issues here can't be separated from an editor conduct problem, which several of the involved editors (including myself) noted as part of the opening statements. Given this, I was really surprised that this was accepted given the previous history of similar reports I've seen (which have generally - and rightly - been quickly rejected), and Guy's well meaning and good faith attempts to limit the discussion only to content issues are a bit of a case of trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole. This approach has lead to the IMO absurd situation where an editor who's blatantly misrepresenting sources to push his view (which appears to be somewhat fringe), posting fairly dubious statements and then claiming that he didn't mean what he wrote can't be properly called on it, which renders the whole discussion somewhat pointless given that this is meant to be a good faith discussion about the content of sources. I note that the editor in question isn't being called on backtracking on his posts (eg, posting that Churchill caused mass starvation in Poland, and then claiming that he didn't mean this at all and was putting this forward only as an example of the type of argument to avoid...), despite the poisonous effect such conduct has on good faith discussions. I'm not going to take any further part in the discussion, and don't see how it's likely to end with a positive result. Nick-D ( talk) 10:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I concur with Nick's analysis that this case is misplaced here because it's not about sources but about user conduct. Guy, I too appreciate that you mean well, but in my opinion you have not handled this case very well for the following reasons:
You struck out all of Paul B's comments (and some of mine), which cautioned that this case would be difficult to resolve without reviewing and considering user conduct.
You opened the floor by injecting very inappropriate humour into the discussion—there's nothing wrong with adding some levity and you apologised for this, but it suggested to me that you are not very familiar with the subject at hand, which demands an exceeding amount of tact, especially from those who are supposed to be moderating the discussion.
You did not respond to Nick and my rebuttals of the synthesis allegation that had focused on the fact that the alleged synthesis had occurred in the lead, which by definition is supposed to summarise content succinctly and accurately.
Mystimwipe engaged in lengthy observations on user conduct in his comments to which you responded without noting this violation nor did you swiftly remove his/her user conduct observations as you did with Paul B's and my comments; you only did so when asked to do so.
When subjected to pressure from this user to omit or modify the sentence in the lead, you took his/her assertion that multiple editors have advocated for such change at face value and suggested your own alternative wording without providing a well thought-out rationale for why such a change is needed and what it would accomplish. Again, only after I queried you about who had submitted "repeated requests" for changes, you admitted that only one user had been making such request—this suggested to me that you mentally amplified the comments coming from this single user while dampening rebutting comments coming from multiple users.
In summary, I do appreciate your efforts here, but I do not see that you have shown evidence that you have sufficient insight into the breadth and complexity of the subject at hand and that you can conduct this discussion judiciously. I suggest to close the case as "failed" or that you recuse yourself from further discussion. Thank you. Malljaja ( talk) 14:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conflict Resolution#Request for comment Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Why does the page WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteer manual of style have the name "manual of style"? That is a rather inaccurate name - "style" implies it is limited to stylistic matters (capitalization, italics, etc). Also, including the phrase "manual of style" in the page name may imply to readers that this is part of the WP:Manual of style, which it is not. More importantly: about half the page (the entire "Opening a case" section) is process-oriented guidance on how to mediate. A better name would be "Volunteer guide" or "Volunteer manual". And why is there so much content overlap with the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering page? -- Noleander ( talk) 03:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I've restored the link at the top of the WP:DRN page (the link for volunteers to go to get instructions) to point to the original Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering .. which is a page about a year old, and that many editors have worked on. We should probably have more people review the new "style" page before we put a link to it in a prominent location at the top of the DRN page. Plus we should look at the overlap between the two and figure out what to do. -- Noleander ( talk) 04:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
And I see that you just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Conflict Resolution today. That appears to be nearly identical to the 2-year old project Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dispute_Resolution. I'm not trying to be annoying, but it looks like you are replicating things that already exist: first the DRN volunteer guideline page, and now the DR project. There is a shortage of volunteers in WP, and large backlogs of work to be done. It is best if we don't multiply the number of guidelines and projects unless there is a compelling reason. If the existing items are not meeting your needs, it is best to try to enhance them before replicating them. -- Noleander ( talk) 11:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I saw this discussion and viewed both the original guide and the new one created by Amadscientist. I'm pleased that a more comprehensive guide was created, in the second survey I ran some comments were made that the existing DRN volunteering guide lacked some details, and the new guide I feel is more substantial. I do think that having these on two separate pages would create confusion for volunteers. Not everyone is as good at dispute resolution as we are, and it can be a daunting task. Needing to read over two pages, IMHO, is too much. I've edited the volunteering page merging in most of the content from the new guide into the old one, then reverted my changes so they can be reviewed first. the version I propose we adopt. What do you all think? Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 10:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)