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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Since we're talking to Earwig, I just thought of something: @ The Earwig: Since the bot is always parsing through the page, would it be overly complicated to have it add a section like this at the very end (i.e. just before the next == tag or the end of the page):
===References===
{{reflist-talk|close=1}}
to the end of any listing in which <ref[...]> appears? People add ref's to their comments all the time and they don't show up. This would automatically do so. There's always the possibility, of course, that they'll add their own reflist or reflist-talk tag, so the bot would need to take that into consideration. @Everyone: If Earwig says it's possible, does the community think it's worthwhile? Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that the DRN form include a request for a link to the place where the issue has been discussed. Presently they are asked: have you discussed this? They always say [yes] but sometimes the discussion is hard to locate as it may be buried amongst other discussions on the talk page or it may have taken place on a project page etc. This searching around for prior discussion wastes the time of the coordinator and moderators who need to verify that significant discussion has taken place before proceeding. Can we make a request for a link to the prior discussion as part of the filing form/process? Comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes the bot will not change a case's status to OPEN even though there is active discussion. Instead the bot maintains the NEEDS ATTENTION status. When I change the status manually to OPEN the bot changes it back to NEEDS ATTENTION. Any suggestions? Solutions? Do I need to by the bot a beer? or bring it some flowers or something? Why does he/she hate me so? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I've never been certain how that works, either, but it might make some degree of sense in light of the two-week do not archive clock that's running (albeit not much sense if there's active discussion going on). Hint: Like that pesky "Check Engine" light that sometimes shows up on your auto dashboard it can be easily fixed with a strip of black electrician's tape. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC) (TransporterMan: enthusiastically subverting Steve Zhang's good ideas since 2011 )
( ←) Look, I just do what's requested of me. It used to be that there was a special "review" status for when the case was older than a certain period of time and "needs assistance" was only used if a volunteer hadn't looked at it in a while. I was told to merge them into one, which I did. Are we changing the behavior again? — Earwig talk 03:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
My main grievance with the current practice is watchlist noise and more scrolling/clicks to get to one's case. I don't see any drawbacks to subpages, except some work to set it up. Paradoctor ( talk) 22:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I propose that the 'open' status of cases be changed to 'active discussion'. -- MrScorch6200 ( t c) 22:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Right now we have several open discussions marked as NEED ASSIST and it's difficult to tell them apart from those that have not yet opened and need a moderator. So I propose we:
At present there are some perceived deficiencies in the way that the bot determines and labels the status of each case. While discussions and work to perfect the bot continues I'm listing here the cases where all participants have given summaries and the case is waiting for a moderator:
All other cases have moderators and are proceeding effectively. Thanks everyone!! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Keithbob has asked that I fill in for him for the remaining few days of his coordinator shift and before my regular shift begins on February 1 so that he can take a wikibreak. I've gladly agreed to do so, but I may be scarce due to RW matters beginning at about 22:30 UTC today through about 14:00 UTC on January 27. If anyone sees anything coordinatorish that needs doing during that time, don't feel shy about wielding the plowshare. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
A moderator is needed here because the current moderator, Keithbob, is on an indefinite Wikibreak. -- MrScorch6200 ( t c) 07:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Could someone take the Puerto Rico case? I'm recused on that one. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what the etiquette is here. I came into the Talk:Highland Clearances dispute after the DR was opened, and have gone a few rounds of it before being pointed here. I wasn't a named participant, but since the other party seems to feel I'm in breach of guidelines in some way, I've left some comments here. Apologies if this is not the correct approach! Andrew Gray ( talk) 19:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
We currently have 5 6 cases with no moderators! Can someone join in on at least one case? --Regards,
MrScorch6200 (
talk ·
contribs) 17:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
There's quite a backlog at 3O if anyone would care to lend a hand. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi everyone; small update here. I've implemented this (month-old sorry) request in EarwigBot. Let me know if it's causing any problems or doesn't seem to be working when it should be. Thanks. — Earwig talk 00:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
For your convenience, I created a template ( Template:DRN-closednote) that is used to quickly notify users (major parties) of speedy-closes and why on their respective talk pages. I originally created this for personal use, but I figured someone else could use it too. --Regards, MrScorch6200 ( talk · contribs) 23:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I made some changes to the template today in an attempt to make it more applicable to a wider range of closes. I also used it to notify an editor as well. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar | ||
I want to commend and recognize all of the editors who are active at DRN. Not just the ones in the threads above but all of the many editors I've seen in recent months who have come by to coordinate and administrate discussions and various tasks associated with the smooth functioning of this noticeboard. I'm very impressed with the level of cooperation, civility and good faith present in the comments and actions of all involved here. Thank you for being model Wikipedians! — Keithbob • Talk • 17:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC) |
I figured that I would raise this issue before it becomes problematic. As you all know, we utilize the auto parameter in the archive box in the header. Currently, we are at 87 archives, but after 100 it stops automatically inserting the links into the archive box (though the bot should continue to archive). The solution seems to be that we'll just have to insert those links manually, but not for a few months. MrScorch6200 ( talk | ctrb) 19:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
@ TransporterMan: Below is the code that RSN uses in their header:
And this is what they use on the project page:
Regards, MrScorch6200 ( talk | ctrb) 17:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
When we close a case are we allowed to change the status to 'close' despite this warning not to?
-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
@Everyone: Please note that the {{ DRN archive top}} tag should go on the first line under the {{ DR case status}} and {{ drn filing editor}} lines, replacing the
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] xx:xx, xx Xxxxx 20xx (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->
material. That way the filing status and the filing editor's names show up in the archive. There's a bit of overwriting if the editor's name is long, but that doesn't hurt anything. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
In the Debian case, the filer made the following comment:
So, in my opinion, this should not be closed as being in discussion elsewhere.
BTW, my health has improved, so I will be able to be more active at DRN. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I have a question about having a dispute resolution process. Once the case is filed, the parties are named and mediation is agreed to, is the discussion limited to those parties and the mediator? Because in a long-lasting talk page debate that occurred in November and December, at a certain point, new accounts appeared to weigh in on the subject in question and they just as quickly disappeared. Later, one side claimed they had won consensus because of a head count of editors when some of these contributors' participation in the discussion was marginal.
I want to make sure everyone who was a participant in that month-long debate is mentioned as a prospective party to the mediation but I don't think it would be helpful to have newly created accounts appear and take sides. Is my understanding correct or can anyone show up and participate in a mediation once it gets under way?
Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
(Emphasis and links as in original.) But even that much is based on the agreement of the parties to the solution which is worked out there.Mediated agreements are not binding. Any agreement achieved through mediation is not permanently binding. If consensus is achieved in a mediation case, the parties are expected by the community to honour the result. However, the consensus does not apply to articles outside the scope of the mediation, nor does it last permanently. Consensus can change.
The Mediation Guide goes on to explain:While mediation is not binding, mediators are authorised to ask each party to explicitly indicate their consent to the result of the case.
Wikipedia has no process by which binding content decisions can be made. As for the closed nature of mediation, MEDCOM is more controlled than DRN, but I cannot imagine a mediator not allowing new parties into the mediation if their presence is needed to achieve a final resolution to the dispute. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Formal mediation is as binding as the parties make it. Whilst the mediator will often have the parties sign their agreement to whatever compromises are reached in the course of mediation, this is not an obligating or binding agreement and the parties cannot be punished for later breaking with these compromises. For that reason, all parties are strongly encouraged to only consent to compromises with which they are fully satisfied: it is a waste of time to say one agrees with a compromise when one will most probably decide otherwise three or four months later, and thus drag the dispute back to square one. The community may also hold as culpable a party who agrees to a reasonable mediation solution, then changes their mind and resumes edit warring or arguing repeatedly for their previously preferred state of the article; that would be outwith the committee's control.
I have relisted my name as a volunteer for the noticeboard. I will spend some time to review the guide.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 22:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
This page is for discussing improvements to the Dispute resolution noticeboard page. See WP:DR for instructions on where to discuss this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Greetings , let me start by saying that i know that the title might sound a bit harsh , however i believe what to claim to be absolutely true and even more than that . Let me also point out that i originate from Himara ( The article is about Himara ) . The evidence is so obvious , that it is almost mind blowing how much can someone change a content with BLANK , non existing sources . I am copy pasting exactly a lead paragraph from the article > The region of Himarë is predominantly populated by an ethnic Greek community. [1] [2] [3] [4] Now please check all the sources presented in the lead paragraph . Let us start with source n.1 , which is .... BLANK and non existing . Source n.2 > is an image from a text of a dubious and maybe even non existing book ?! When is this text from , and in what context is the author saying that , furthermore is this book even existing ? Source n.3 > It is .... BLANK and non existing Source n.4 > Maybe the only reasonable source , BUT even that speaks about the contest and the fact that the Albanian goverment DOES NOT recognise it as a minority zone . My problem is not that per se , but the fact that the abusive user Alexikoua has reverted all my legitimate and useful edits . If you go to Himara article , what i did is to change the sentence , to saying > The region of Himara is also populated by an ethnic greek minority < , furthemore i did provide the official election voting of 2013 where it was demonstrated that the greek minority party did take ONLY 25 % , with the remaining population voting for albanian parties , so i added after this sentence > This could help indentify the proportion of the greek speaking community < I know that election results should not be in the lead paragraph . But given the fact that the original abusive and NON correct statement is there , i just gave another clue to the whole story . This is just the tip of the iceberg , if you go to the talk page you will see that User Alexikoua is having muliple disputes with countless other persons about this in a period of 4 or even more years . Furthemore i would like you to check if user Pinkbeast is a Sock puppet account of user alexikoua . The article is greatly distorted and used for propagandistic purposes . Furthemore they have REVERTET ALL OF MY EDITS , so i have no other choice than contacting someone superior . Regards , Bonender ( talk) 21:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC) |
I'm going to be traveling and probably mostly to altogether unavailable from about 22:00 UTC on Thursday, March 20, until about 13:00 UTC on Monday, March 24, +/- 12 hours in each case. Please coordinate amongst yourselves, no wild parties or keggers, and no bad reports from the neighbors when I return. Remember that the cabal is watching. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 20:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
"If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you." Awesome! However, the link points to a page listing volunteers, but the page says it's just a "social" page. Are you supposed to just pick a volunteer from that page (hopefully at random, so the first person on the list doesn't get saddled with all the requests), and then add a new section on their talk page with your question? Or am I missing something. Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 19:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I've made a proposal here on the DRR talk page. If you have a minute would you please read it and comment? It's very short. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
This has been brought up before and received support from one other editor but I'm giving it a second try. It would be very, very valuable to have the form for filing a DRN amended so that it requires the filing party to provide a link(s) to prior discussion. I waste a lot of time trying to verify that the case meets the threshold of prior discussion and/or accessing prior discussion to determine if I want to take a case etc. I also feel that others are likely doing the same thing and that the wasted time is multiplied. Does anyone object to such an addition? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
While improving this form is well worth doing, in my opinion someone should do a proper job of re-engineering all of our DRN automation tools (bots and forms) from top to bottom. I have posted a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 59#Dispute resolution noticeboard -- also my second try. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Based on T-Man's suggestions I propose the following modified text for the DRN filing form:
Comments? Suggestions?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, it looks like we have consensus for the change. I'm waiting for this conversation regarding comprehensive changes to the DRN form and bot to conclude before I move ahead on this. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, I realise I've been extremely tardy and absent from WP lately, just wanted to drop you all a note that I will be doing my co-ordinator stint from April-May. Look forward to getting back into things slowly (been unbelievably busy but will try getting back into Wikipedia more :) ) Steven Zhang ( talk) 12:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm frustrated with the current system we have for labeling and categorizing the status of individual cases including the summary chart that appears at the top of DRN and DRN talk pages (this page). As you can see, cases that are open and active are being mislabeled as Needs Attention and some cases that haven't been opened are mis-labeled In Progress. We'd like to have this and other deficiencies in the current automation system (and filing form) remedied, but we need your support here at the Bot Requests page, where it is currently being discussed. Please take a moment to leave a comment on that page. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking that as DRN volunteers we don't spend enough time supporting and or criticizing each other. Certainly we don't want to do that during an open case -- that would undermine the volunteer -- but we certainly can do so after the cases close.
I would like to submit my two most recent cases -- one resolved and one failed -- for discussion. Was there anything I could have dome better? Are there any lessons learned that we could put into our DRN instructions?
The cases are:
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 89#Sevastopol
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 88#Debian
I have my asbestos underwear on, so please, flame away! :) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi all,
I'm off to the Wikimedia Conference today (in berlin) so will have no internet access for at least 36 hours. Can someone please keep an eye on DRN until then? :) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 23:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I just went to the talk page of Soorejmg ( talk · contribs) to ask him to reply to comments above, but I saw he is currently involved in addressing edit war issues raised against him (or her). It would be unfair to expect him to pay attention to this discussion as well that conversation with administrators. I am asking the DRN Coordinator for guidance regarding whether to continue this discussion or close it for now. - Wikishagnik ( talk) 22:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to be traveling in Poland for almost a month (4/16 - 5/12, ± a day or two) starting next Wednesday and will have limited connectivity (and little time to spend online on those occasions when I can get online) during that time. Between now and then I'm not going to be taking on anything that I might have to abandon when I leave. Do zobaczenia, y'all, TransporterMan ( TALK) 13:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I've been away longer than I said (jet lag and all). I archived some of the cases that were closed and will work on the still open cases later. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 12:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
So I've been invited to participate in a discussion, and there is a section for "Summary of dispute by [me]", but when I try to edit it I get a big red warning: "Do not continue to discuss disputes before a volunteer has opened a thread. - this is not the article talk page." The entry is listed as "new", does that mean that no volunteer has yet opened a thread? The link "Need support? Ask us at #wikipedia-en-drn" doesn't work. It sounds as if my summary mustn't be entered yet, but isn't it needed at the beginning of the process? Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 09:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
If you've not read Mark Miller's opening comments, you should do so first before reading this. The discussion at the article talk page seems to me to be proceeding pretty well. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah is making plainly-stated and well-explained objections (which is not to say I either agree or disagree with him, but only that he's not giving them short shrift) and the other parties are responding and learning, as newcomers, how to respond. The sense of frustration and urgency seems to be deriving from their class project deadline and that's a consideration foreign to the interests of this encyclopedia. I would note that the listing editor, Gotgomped, does not have even one single content-related talk page edit, either at the article talk page or at any user talk page (he has a couple of conduct-related ones, but none that really focus on content). It was Jbrubins who proposed bringing this to DRN. The urgency created by their deadlines is not our concern and I have to cynically wonder if this dispute will not resolve itself altogether by simply being dropped by them once that deadline passes. My recommendation to the DRN community is that this ought to be sent back to the talk page. I'm okay with WP being used as class projects, but that use cannot be allowed to disrupt the ordinary workings of the encyclopedia and the professors and students doing it can't be given any special consideration that other editors are not given. If any DRN volunteer wants to go over there and jump in as an opinion-giver or as a mediator, they are of course free to do so. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I wrote an essay about a common DRN situation at User talk:Guy Macon/One against many. Any suggestions on improving it would be most welcome. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello Mark Miller, I am a bit confused about the Rodeo Drive discussion. If you are working on the discussion, could you add the in progress tag to the discussion? The bot is on sick leave and your help would be appreciated.-- Wikishagnik ( talk) 18:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Wow, we've got 16 cases in the pipe (chart) So far we are doing well thought EXCEPT Formula Season One [2] they've been waiting a long time and got passed over. Can anyone help? Steven Zhang, TransporterMan, Wikishagnik, Guy Macon -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
{{
Pinggroup}}
is better than all of those templates.
Hasteur (
talk) 20:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Er. I mean "Mr Coordinator"... :)
At the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting case, one of the involved editors has signed up as the DRN volunteer on the case he is involved with. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
(Discussion below moved here from my talk page. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC) )
There is an edit war going on the Willem Buiter page in his personal section. The back and forth is about an affair but seems from the stories that these are allegations for both parties involved, but I noticed on the Talk: Willem Buiter Page that the editor that has made the changes to his page is the same handle of the person that has only contributed to the other party in this dispute: Heleen Mees. Both are semi-protected but my contention is that these allegations don't even belong there in the first place until it is resolved, but the editor (Bmwz3hm) that does solely Heleen edits and questionable contributions to Willem appears to not have the Wiki guidelines as motivation. Seems more of ill intent. Thoughts or suggestions?-- OnceaMetro ( talk) 16:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I have some pressing RL issues coming up in the next few weeks and I won't be on WP as regularly as I have been, so...... I will not be able to pick up any new cases for a while. I will stop by from time to time and do some admin type/clean up as needed but I don't plan on taking any new cases after I finish the one I have underway now. Also keep in mind that TransporterMan, another DRN regular, is away for a month or so. Meanwhile, I know others will fill the gaps. Thanking you in advance! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I wanted a second opinion because I don't fully understand his pov, but this is taking forever and I've decided I'm okay with the changes. Can I just withdraw the dispute case? Bali88 ( talk) 22:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Attention collaborators, we need a DRN volunteer to take the above case which has been open since April 16. This is an urgent request for someone to please assist in this case! ( Acronin3— Alpha Quadrant— AstroChemist— Atethnekos— BaSH PR0MPT— Bejnar— Bobzchemist— Buster7— Byzantine95— Cabe6403)-- Maleko Mela ( talk) 00:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Do you think that I should close this case? It seems that a consensus by four users formed at around the time this case was filed (see the last thread on the article's talk). I am tempted to close it, but am asking for a second opinion. MrScorch6200 ( talk | ctrb) 21:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
After a small amount of consideration, I have decided that I should post this here for others to review. I recently closed the ResearchGate filing due to the two issues. 1) The OP has made it clear they do not have time for the filing and 2) I do not feel that requiring anyone, an editor or a volunteer, to register a membership to a site is a requirement we should support for sources or to advance a DRN filing. [4] I wish for others to weigh in on whether or not that was a proper closing. Thank you. Mark Miller-- Maleko Mela ( talk) 02:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Can someone with greater authority than me please look at the discussion titled "water fluoridation"? The IP editor who brought it here has admitted in that section to being a blocked user. I have a feeling there's something not quite right with that situation. HiLo48 ( talk) 09:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I tried to open discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Traditional Chinese medicine. I am on the list at Wikipedia:DRN/V#List of the DRN volunteers, but the bot didn't open it, and in fact when I manually changed the discussion to "open" the bot changed it back to "needs assist". What do I need to do? -- Bejnar ( talk) 18:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
After doing some research on my father Noble S.D. Buckley I noticed that you have said that Noble Park was named after an explosives supplier to my grandfather Frank Buckley, this is incorrect the area was named after his son Noble, apart from my father and mother telling me this as a child (both are now deceased) I also have a souvenir programme from 1984 which also states this. How can this be changed? Regards, Vicki Lee Filippidis Vickifilippidis ( talk) 00:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Help! There are several cases that were filed more than a week ago and still have no DRN volunteer. Can you please help? Thanking you in advance! Acronin3 ( talk · contribs), Buster7 ( talk · contribs), EuroCarGT ( talk · contribs), Mark Miller ( talk · contribs), MrScorch6200 ( talk · contribs), Mr. Stradivarius ( talk · contribs), PhilKnight ( talk · contribs), Technical 13 ( talk · contribs), Theodore! ( talk · contribs) or Khimaris ( talk · contribs) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi all,
I'm really flat out at the moment and can't dedicate the time that the co-ordinator post needs. Can someone please take over (I've removed myself from the post). Sorry, and thanks. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 01:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I can't take the responsibility just now as I have too many things going on in real life but I'll look in on things and do clean up etc. when I can.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I added info to the Suzannah Lipscomb page:
Whilst studying at Oxford University she taught Lipscomb is studying history at Oxford University at the university's Middle Eastern Dancing school.
Using the following link as the source
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/oct/19/health.lifeandhealth
The user TheRedPenOfDoom is objecting to this because in the article it refers to Suzie. As Suzie is a common known abbreviated firm of Suzannah and the 'suzie' in the article studied at the same university, studying the same subject at the same time as Suzannah then I think it is fair to say this is the same person.
The RedPenOfDoom removed my info and when I reinstated it I was accused of disruptive editing. Can you please advise why my information addition is not valid?
I have created a series of DRN Awards and award templates and set up, subject to community discussion, a set of rough standards for awarding them. See Dispute resolution noticeboard/Awards for details. All volunteers should feel free to hand out awards as may be appropriate after checking out that page. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 19:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not exactly intimately familiar with the workings or best practices of DRN (yet), but I was wondering whether others here would consider it potentially helpful if DRN filings included a "Possible precedents" section, where editors could add links to existing discussions that they feel might inform a current dispute. Kind of like "See also" links in articles. The section would not be used (explicitly, anyway) to try to shape a dispute, just to allow interested parties to review previous situations that might have bearing on the current one.
For instance, right now there's a dispute regarding, for film articles, "Differences from the novel" sections. I've done enough editing of film articles to know this has come up before, so I noted a discussion that had occurred at WT:FILM and a related RFC. I then remembered that there in fact had been a DRN case regarding a "Historicity" section, which while not strictly related seemed to have some similar basic arguments, so I linked to that as well (and the related RFC). My goal wasn't to say "last time this came up the ruling was X" but rather to make it clear that the situation had been discussed before and some of the arguments that applied then might be relevant to the current dispute. Now obviously there's likely to be some bias, in that editors are probably less likely to bring up precedents that don't support their viewpoints...but we can at least try to minimize the presentation of it. In any case, consensus can change; there's no reason former precedents should dictate the course of a DRN filing...but I believe they can inform it.
Anyway, I won't swear revenge on the DRN volunteers or such if nobody thinks this is worthwhile; just thought it might be potentially useful, and possibly provide a more user-friendly central point for listing precedents than wading through prose. Thanks for your thoughts! DonIago ( talk) 14:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Timeshare tour ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi, I was making a few edits to timeshare tour, and there's an editor sitting-on/camping the article reverting every change I make. He's also calling me names in the talk page and making unfounded accusations. Finally, he's dismissing points I'm making about the tone and content of the article. Where do I go for help on that? Thanks you for any help. 66.67.50.210 ( talk) 02:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Hammond1993
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The coastal Himara region of Southern Albania has always had a predominantly ethnic Greek population.
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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Since we're talking to Earwig, I just thought of something: @ The Earwig: Since the bot is always parsing through the page, would it be overly complicated to have it add a section like this at the very end (i.e. just before the next == tag or the end of the page):
===References===
{{reflist-talk|close=1}}
to the end of any listing in which <ref[...]> appears? People add ref's to their comments all the time and they don't show up. This would automatically do so. There's always the possibility, of course, that they'll add their own reflist or reflist-talk tag, so the bot would need to take that into consideration. @Everyone: If Earwig says it's possible, does the community think it's worthwhile? Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that the DRN form include a request for a link to the place where the issue has been discussed. Presently they are asked: have you discussed this? They always say [yes] but sometimes the discussion is hard to locate as it may be buried amongst other discussions on the talk page or it may have taken place on a project page etc. This searching around for prior discussion wastes the time of the coordinator and moderators who need to verify that significant discussion has taken place before proceeding. Can we make a request for a link to the prior discussion as part of the filing form/process? Comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes the bot will not change a case's status to OPEN even though there is active discussion. Instead the bot maintains the NEEDS ATTENTION status. When I change the status manually to OPEN the bot changes it back to NEEDS ATTENTION. Any suggestions? Solutions? Do I need to by the bot a beer? or bring it some flowers or something? Why does he/she hate me so? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I've never been certain how that works, either, but it might make some degree of sense in light of the two-week do not archive clock that's running (albeit not much sense if there's active discussion going on). Hint: Like that pesky "Check Engine" light that sometimes shows up on your auto dashboard it can be easily fixed with a strip of black electrician's tape. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC) (TransporterMan: enthusiastically subverting Steve Zhang's good ideas since 2011 )
( ←) Look, I just do what's requested of me. It used to be that there was a special "review" status for when the case was older than a certain period of time and "needs assistance" was only used if a volunteer hadn't looked at it in a while. I was told to merge them into one, which I did. Are we changing the behavior again? — Earwig talk 03:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
My main grievance with the current practice is watchlist noise and more scrolling/clicks to get to one's case. I don't see any drawbacks to subpages, except some work to set it up. Paradoctor ( talk) 22:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I propose that the 'open' status of cases be changed to 'active discussion'. -- MrScorch6200 ( t c) 22:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Right now we have several open discussions marked as NEED ASSIST and it's difficult to tell them apart from those that have not yet opened and need a moderator. So I propose we:
At present there are some perceived deficiencies in the way that the bot determines and labels the status of each case. While discussions and work to perfect the bot continues I'm listing here the cases where all participants have given summaries and the case is waiting for a moderator:
All other cases have moderators and are proceeding effectively. Thanks everyone!! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Keithbob has asked that I fill in for him for the remaining few days of his coordinator shift and before my regular shift begins on February 1 so that he can take a wikibreak. I've gladly agreed to do so, but I may be scarce due to RW matters beginning at about 22:30 UTC today through about 14:00 UTC on January 27. If anyone sees anything coordinatorish that needs doing during that time, don't feel shy about wielding the plowshare. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
A moderator is needed here because the current moderator, Keithbob, is on an indefinite Wikibreak. -- MrScorch6200 ( t c) 07:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Could someone take the Puerto Rico case? I'm recused on that one. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what the etiquette is here. I came into the Talk:Highland Clearances dispute after the DR was opened, and have gone a few rounds of it before being pointed here. I wasn't a named participant, but since the other party seems to feel I'm in breach of guidelines in some way, I've left some comments here. Apologies if this is not the correct approach! Andrew Gray ( talk) 19:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
We currently have 5 6 cases with no moderators! Can someone join in on at least one case? --Regards,
MrScorch6200 (
talk ·
contribs) 17:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
There's quite a backlog at 3O if anyone would care to lend a hand. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi everyone; small update here. I've implemented this (month-old sorry) request in EarwigBot. Let me know if it's causing any problems or doesn't seem to be working when it should be. Thanks. — Earwig talk 00:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
For your convenience, I created a template ( Template:DRN-closednote) that is used to quickly notify users (major parties) of speedy-closes and why on their respective talk pages. I originally created this for personal use, but I figured someone else could use it too. --Regards, MrScorch6200 ( talk · contribs) 23:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I made some changes to the template today in an attempt to make it more applicable to a wider range of closes. I also used it to notify an editor as well. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar | ||
I want to commend and recognize all of the editors who are active at DRN. Not just the ones in the threads above but all of the many editors I've seen in recent months who have come by to coordinate and administrate discussions and various tasks associated with the smooth functioning of this noticeboard. I'm very impressed with the level of cooperation, civility and good faith present in the comments and actions of all involved here. Thank you for being model Wikipedians! — Keithbob • Talk • 17:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC) |
I figured that I would raise this issue before it becomes problematic. As you all know, we utilize the auto parameter in the archive box in the header. Currently, we are at 87 archives, but after 100 it stops automatically inserting the links into the archive box (though the bot should continue to archive). The solution seems to be that we'll just have to insert those links manually, but not for a few months. MrScorch6200 ( talk | ctrb) 19:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
@ TransporterMan: Below is the code that RSN uses in their header:
And this is what they use on the project page:
Regards, MrScorch6200 ( talk | ctrb) 17:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
When we close a case are we allowed to change the status to 'close' despite this warning not to?
-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
@Everyone: Please note that the {{ DRN archive top}} tag should go on the first line under the {{ DR case status}} and {{ drn filing editor}} lines, replacing the
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] xx:xx, xx Xxxxx 20xx (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->
material. That way the filing status and the filing editor's names show up in the archive. There's a bit of overwriting if the editor's name is long, but that doesn't hurt anything. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
In the Debian case, the filer made the following comment:
So, in my opinion, this should not be closed as being in discussion elsewhere.
BTW, my health has improved, so I will be able to be more active at DRN. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I have a question about having a dispute resolution process. Once the case is filed, the parties are named and mediation is agreed to, is the discussion limited to those parties and the mediator? Because in a long-lasting talk page debate that occurred in November and December, at a certain point, new accounts appeared to weigh in on the subject in question and they just as quickly disappeared. Later, one side claimed they had won consensus because of a head count of editors when some of these contributors' participation in the discussion was marginal.
I want to make sure everyone who was a participant in that month-long debate is mentioned as a prospective party to the mediation but I don't think it would be helpful to have newly created accounts appear and take sides. Is my understanding correct or can anyone show up and participate in a mediation once it gets under way?
Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
(Emphasis and links as in original.) But even that much is based on the agreement of the parties to the solution which is worked out there.Mediated agreements are not binding. Any agreement achieved through mediation is not permanently binding. If consensus is achieved in a mediation case, the parties are expected by the community to honour the result. However, the consensus does not apply to articles outside the scope of the mediation, nor does it last permanently. Consensus can change.
The Mediation Guide goes on to explain:While mediation is not binding, mediators are authorised to ask each party to explicitly indicate their consent to the result of the case.
Wikipedia has no process by which binding content decisions can be made. As for the closed nature of mediation, MEDCOM is more controlled than DRN, but I cannot imagine a mediator not allowing new parties into the mediation if their presence is needed to achieve a final resolution to the dispute. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Formal mediation is as binding as the parties make it. Whilst the mediator will often have the parties sign their agreement to whatever compromises are reached in the course of mediation, this is not an obligating or binding agreement and the parties cannot be punished for later breaking with these compromises. For that reason, all parties are strongly encouraged to only consent to compromises with which they are fully satisfied: it is a waste of time to say one agrees with a compromise when one will most probably decide otherwise three or four months later, and thus drag the dispute back to square one. The community may also hold as culpable a party who agrees to a reasonable mediation solution, then changes their mind and resumes edit warring or arguing repeatedly for their previously preferred state of the article; that would be outwith the committee's control.
I have relisted my name as a volunteer for the noticeboard. I will spend some time to review the guide.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 22:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
This page is for discussing improvements to the Dispute resolution noticeboard page. See WP:DR for instructions on where to discuss this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Greetings , let me start by saying that i know that the title might sound a bit harsh , however i believe what to claim to be absolutely true and even more than that . Let me also point out that i originate from Himara ( The article is about Himara ) . The evidence is so obvious , that it is almost mind blowing how much can someone change a content with BLANK , non existing sources . I am copy pasting exactly a lead paragraph from the article > The region of Himarë is predominantly populated by an ethnic Greek community. [1] [2] [3] [4] Now please check all the sources presented in the lead paragraph . Let us start with source n.1 , which is .... BLANK and non existing . Source n.2 > is an image from a text of a dubious and maybe even non existing book ?! When is this text from , and in what context is the author saying that , furthermore is this book even existing ? Source n.3 > It is .... BLANK and non existing Source n.4 > Maybe the only reasonable source , BUT even that speaks about the contest and the fact that the Albanian goverment DOES NOT recognise it as a minority zone . My problem is not that per se , but the fact that the abusive user Alexikoua has reverted all my legitimate and useful edits . If you go to Himara article , what i did is to change the sentence , to saying > The region of Himara is also populated by an ethnic greek minority < , furthemore i did provide the official election voting of 2013 where it was demonstrated that the greek minority party did take ONLY 25 % , with the remaining population voting for albanian parties , so i added after this sentence > This could help indentify the proportion of the greek speaking community < I know that election results should not be in the lead paragraph . But given the fact that the original abusive and NON correct statement is there , i just gave another clue to the whole story . This is just the tip of the iceberg , if you go to the talk page you will see that User Alexikoua is having muliple disputes with countless other persons about this in a period of 4 or even more years . Furthemore i would like you to check if user Pinkbeast is a Sock puppet account of user alexikoua . The article is greatly distorted and used for propagandistic purposes . Furthemore they have REVERTET ALL OF MY EDITS , so i have no other choice than contacting someone superior . Regards , Bonender ( talk) 21:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC) |
I'm going to be traveling and probably mostly to altogether unavailable from about 22:00 UTC on Thursday, March 20, until about 13:00 UTC on Monday, March 24, +/- 12 hours in each case. Please coordinate amongst yourselves, no wild parties or keggers, and no bad reports from the neighbors when I return. Remember that the cabal is watching. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 20:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
"If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you." Awesome! However, the link points to a page listing volunteers, but the page says it's just a "social" page. Are you supposed to just pick a volunteer from that page (hopefully at random, so the first person on the list doesn't get saddled with all the requests), and then add a new section on their talk page with your question? Or am I missing something. Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 19:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I've made a proposal here on the DRR talk page. If you have a minute would you please read it and comment? It's very short. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
This has been brought up before and received support from one other editor but I'm giving it a second try. It would be very, very valuable to have the form for filing a DRN amended so that it requires the filing party to provide a link(s) to prior discussion. I waste a lot of time trying to verify that the case meets the threshold of prior discussion and/or accessing prior discussion to determine if I want to take a case etc. I also feel that others are likely doing the same thing and that the wasted time is multiplied. Does anyone object to such an addition? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
While improving this form is well worth doing, in my opinion someone should do a proper job of re-engineering all of our DRN automation tools (bots and forms) from top to bottom. I have posted a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 59#Dispute resolution noticeboard -- also my second try. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Based on T-Man's suggestions I propose the following modified text for the DRN filing form:
Comments? Suggestions?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, it looks like we have consensus for the change. I'm waiting for this conversation regarding comprehensive changes to the DRN form and bot to conclude before I move ahead on this. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, I realise I've been extremely tardy and absent from WP lately, just wanted to drop you all a note that I will be doing my co-ordinator stint from April-May. Look forward to getting back into things slowly (been unbelievably busy but will try getting back into Wikipedia more :) ) Steven Zhang ( talk) 12:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm frustrated with the current system we have for labeling and categorizing the status of individual cases including the summary chart that appears at the top of DRN and DRN talk pages (this page). As you can see, cases that are open and active are being mislabeled as Needs Attention and some cases that haven't been opened are mis-labeled In Progress. We'd like to have this and other deficiencies in the current automation system (and filing form) remedied, but we need your support here at the Bot Requests page, where it is currently being discussed. Please take a moment to leave a comment on that page. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking that as DRN volunteers we don't spend enough time supporting and or criticizing each other. Certainly we don't want to do that during an open case -- that would undermine the volunteer -- but we certainly can do so after the cases close.
I would like to submit my two most recent cases -- one resolved and one failed -- for discussion. Was there anything I could have dome better? Are there any lessons learned that we could put into our DRN instructions?
The cases are:
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 89#Sevastopol
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 88#Debian
I have my asbestos underwear on, so please, flame away! :) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi all,
I'm off to the Wikimedia Conference today (in berlin) so will have no internet access for at least 36 hours. Can someone please keep an eye on DRN until then? :) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 23:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I just went to the talk page of Soorejmg ( talk · contribs) to ask him to reply to comments above, but I saw he is currently involved in addressing edit war issues raised against him (or her). It would be unfair to expect him to pay attention to this discussion as well that conversation with administrators. I am asking the DRN Coordinator for guidance regarding whether to continue this discussion or close it for now. - Wikishagnik ( talk) 22:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to be traveling in Poland for almost a month (4/16 - 5/12, ± a day or two) starting next Wednesday and will have limited connectivity (and little time to spend online on those occasions when I can get online) during that time. Between now and then I'm not going to be taking on anything that I might have to abandon when I leave. Do zobaczenia, y'all, TransporterMan ( TALK) 13:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I've been away longer than I said (jet lag and all). I archived some of the cases that were closed and will work on the still open cases later. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 12:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
So I've been invited to participate in a discussion, and there is a section for "Summary of dispute by [me]", but when I try to edit it I get a big red warning: "Do not continue to discuss disputes before a volunteer has opened a thread. - this is not the article talk page." The entry is listed as "new", does that mean that no volunteer has yet opened a thread? The link "Need support? Ask us at #wikipedia-en-drn" doesn't work. It sounds as if my summary mustn't be entered yet, but isn't it needed at the beginning of the process? Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 09:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
If you've not read Mark Miller's opening comments, you should do so first before reading this. The discussion at the article talk page seems to me to be proceeding pretty well. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah is making plainly-stated and well-explained objections (which is not to say I either agree or disagree with him, but only that he's not giving them short shrift) and the other parties are responding and learning, as newcomers, how to respond. The sense of frustration and urgency seems to be deriving from their class project deadline and that's a consideration foreign to the interests of this encyclopedia. I would note that the listing editor, Gotgomped, does not have even one single content-related talk page edit, either at the article talk page or at any user talk page (he has a couple of conduct-related ones, but none that really focus on content). It was Jbrubins who proposed bringing this to DRN. The urgency created by their deadlines is not our concern and I have to cynically wonder if this dispute will not resolve itself altogether by simply being dropped by them once that deadline passes. My recommendation to the DRN community is that this ought to be sent back to the talk page. I'm okay with WP being used as class projects, but that use cannot be allowed to disrupt the ordinary workings of the encyclopedia and the professors and students doing it can't be given any special consideration that other editors are not given. If any DRN volunteer wants to go over there and jump in as an opinion-giver or as a mediator, they are of course free to do so. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I wrote an essay about a common DRN situation at User talk:Guy Macon/One against many. Any suggestions on improving it would be most welcome. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello Mark Miller, I am a bit confused about the Rodeo Drive discussion. If you are working on the discussion, could you add the in progress tag to the discussion? The bot is on sick leave and your help would be appreciated.-- Wikishagnik ( talk) 18:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Wow, we've got 16 cases in the pipe (chart) So far we are doing well thought EXCEPT Formula Season One [2] they've been waiting a long time and got passed over. Can anyone help? Steven Zhang, TransporterMan, Wikishagnik, Guy Macon -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
{{
Pinggroup}}
is better than all of those templates.
Hasteur (
talk) 20:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Er. I mean "Mr Coordinator"... :)
At the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting case, one of the involved editors has signed up as the DRN volunteer on the case he is involved with. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
(Discussion below moved here from my talk page. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC) )
There is an edit war going on the Willem Buiter page in his personal section. The back and forth is about an affair but seems from the stories that these are allegations for both parties involved, but I noticed on the Talk: Willem Buiter Page that the editor that has made the changes to his page is the same handle of the person that has only contributed to the other party in this dispute: Heleen Mees. Both are semi-protected but my contention is that these allegations don't even belong there in the first place until it is resolved, but the editor (Bmwz3hm) that does solely Heleen edits and questionable contributions to Willem appears to not have the Wiki guidelines as motivation. Seems more of ill intent. Thoughts or suggestions?-- OnceaMetro ( talk) 16:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I have some pressing RL issues coming up in the next few weeks and I won't be on WP as regularly as I have been, so...... I will not be able to pick up any new cases for a while. I will stop by from time to time and do some admin type/clean up as needed but I don't plan on taking any new cases after I finish the one I have underway now. Also keep in mind that TransporterMan, another DRN regular, is away for a month or so. Meanwhile, I know others will fill the gaps. Thanking you in advance! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I wanted a second opinion because I don't fully understand his pov, but this is taking forever and I've decided I'm okay with the changes. Can I just withdraw the dispute case? Bali88 ( talk) 22:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Attention collaborators, we need a DRN volunteer to take the above case which has been open since April 16. This is an urgent request for someone to please assist in this case! ( Acronin3— Alpha Quadrant— AstroChemist— Atethnekos— BaSH PR0MPT— Bejnar— Bobzchemist— Buster7— Byzantine95— Cabe6403)-- Maleko Mela ( talk) 00:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Do you think that I should close this case? It seems that a consensus by four users formed at around the time this case was filed (see the last thread on the article's talk). I am tempted to close it, but am asking for a second opinion. MrScorch6200 ( talk | ctrb) 21:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
After a small amount of consideration, I have decided that I should post this here for others to review. I recently closed the ResearchGate filing due to the two issues. 1) The OP has made it clear they do not have time for the filing and 2) I do not feel that requiring anyone, an editor or a volunteer, to register a membership to a site is a requirement we should support for sources or to advance a DRN filing. [4] I wish for others to weigh in on whether or not that was a proper closing. Thank you. Mark Miller-- Maleko Mela ( talk) 02:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Can someone with greater authority than me please look at the discussion titled "water fluoridation"? The IP editor who brought it here has admitted in that section to being a blocked user. I have a feeling there's something not quite right with that situation. HiLo48 ( talk) 09:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I tried to open discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Traditional Chinese medicine. I am on the list at Wikipedia:DRN/V#List of the DRN volunteers, but the bot didn't open it, and in fact when I manually changed the discussion to "open" the bot changed it back to "needs assist". What do I need to do? -- Bejnar ( talk) 18:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
After doing some research on my father Noble S.D. Buckley I noticed that you have said that Noble Park was named after an explosives supplier to my grandfather Frank Buckley, this is incorrect the area was named after his son Noble, apart from my father and mother telling me this as a child (both are now deceased) I also have a souvenir programme from 1984 which also states this. How can this be changed? Regards, Vicki Lee Filippidis Vickifilippidis ( talk) 00:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Help! There are several cases that were filed more than a week ago and still have no DRN volunteer. Can you please help? Thanking you in advance! Acronin3 ( talk · contribs), Buster7 ( talk · contribs), EuroCarGT ( talk · contribs), Mark Miller ( talk · contribs), MrScorch6200 ( talk · contribs), Mr. Stradivarius ( talk · contribs), PhilKnight ( talk · contribs), Technical 13 ( talk · contribs), Theodore! ( talk · contribs) or Khimaris ( talk · contribs) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi all,
I'm really flat out at the moment and can't dedicate the time that the co-ordinator post needs. Can someone please take over (I've removed myself from the post). Sorry, and thanks. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 01:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I can't take the responsibility just now as I have too many things going on in real life but I'll look in on things and do clean up etc. when I can.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I added info to the Suzannah Lipscomb page:
Whilst studying at Oxford University she taught Lipscomb is studying history at Oxford University at the university's Middle Eastern Dancing school.
Using the following link as the source
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/oct/19/health.lifeandhealth
The user TheRedPenOfDoom is objecting to this because in the article it refers to Suzie. As Suzie is a common known abbreviated firm of Suzannah and the 'suzie' in the article studied at the same university, studying the same subject at the same time as Suzannah then I think it is fair to say this is the same person.
The RedPenOfDoom removed my info and when I reinstated it I was accused of disruptive editing. Can you please advise why my information addition is not valid?
I have created a series of DRN Awards and award templates and set up, subject to community discussion, a set of rough standards for awarding them. See Dispute resolution noticeboard/Awards for details. All volunteers should feel free to hand out awards as may be appropriate after checking out that page. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 19:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not exactly intimately familiar with the workings or best practices of DRN (yet), but I was wondering whether others here would consider it potentially helpful if DRN filings included a "Possible precedents" section, where editors could add links to existing discussions that they feel might inform a current dispute. Kind of like "See also" links in articles. The section would not be used (explicitly, anyway) to try to shape a dispute, just to allow interested parties to review previous situations that might have bearing on the current one.
For instance, right now there's a dispute regarding, for film articles, "Differences from the novel" sections. I've done enough editing of film articles to know this has come up before, so I noted a discussion that had occurred at WT:FILM and a related RFC. I then remembered that there in fact had been a DRN case regarding a "Historicity" section, which while not strictly related seemed to have some similar basic arguments, so I linked to that as well (and the related RFC). My goal wasn't to say "last time this came up the ruling was X" but rather to make it clear that the situation had been discussed before and some of the arguments that applied then might be relevant to the current dispute. Now obviously there's likely to be some bias, in that editors are probably less likely to bring up precedents that don't support their viewpoints...but we can at least try to minimize the presentation of it. In any case, consensus can change; there's no reason former precedents should dictate the course of a DRN filing...but I believe they can inform it.
Anyway, I won't swear revenge on the DRN volunteers or such if nobody thinks this is worthwhile; just thought it might be potentially useful, and possibly provide a more user-friendly central point for listing precedents than wading through prose. Thanks for your thoughts! DonIago ( talk) 14:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Timeshare tour ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi, I was making a few edits to timeshare tour, and there's an editor sitting-on/camping the article reverting every change I make. He's also calling me names in the talk page and making unfounded accusations. Finally, he's dismissing points I'm making about the tone and content of the article. Where do I go for help on that? Thanks you for any help. 66.67.50.210 ( talk) 02:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Hammond1993
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The coastal Himara region of Southern Albania has always had a predominantly ethnic Greek population.