![]() | 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 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
I can see a new editor has included his/her name ( User:Fruit Nd Nut) in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteers, who's newer than 'Editor of all things Wikipedia'. How come we get new volunteers very often? What's attracting new editors here (to be volunteers in particular)? *sigh*-- ☮ JAaron95 Talk 16:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
(Jaaron95) please do not mistake me being new as being incompetent in volunteering here. I am in fact in I.T so although new, am more then capable. Perhaps I may suggest with strong unconstructive opinions like that YOU may reconsider volunteering here.-- Fruit Nd Nut ( talk) 17:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
(JAaron95) I understand what you are saying, it must be somewhat frustrating when new editors volunteer and make contributions when they are not totally familiar with the processes, I can assure you that I only want to make helpful contributions and will not do so until I have complete understanding of the gudelines....ect....ect. best regards-- Fruit Nd Nut ( talk) 17:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I am not raising this issue to imply criticism of anything or anyone in relation to the Fruit Nd Nut situation, above, and FSM knows that we were gun shy after the recent The Editor of All Things Wikipedia flap, but I have to wonder if we're doing ourselves a disservice by immediately reacting to an experienced editor merely signing up on the volunteer list. As Human3015 has pointed out above and on FNN's talk page, there are many, many editors who sign up on our volunteer list and go for a very, very long time without ever making an edit on our main page (indeed, there are a gazillion who sign up there and never darken our cyberdoor again, just like there are a gazillion who sign up on Wikiproject participant lists <ahem> but never participate). While I imagine that most of those "joiners" will never do anything here there may be a very small number like Human3015 who do and making a preemptive "you're not experienced enough to take part here" strike on those who are inexperienced, before they show any sign of actually participating, may I fear not only prevent them from ever doing so but run them off from Wikipedia altogether (as is apparently what has happened with FNN). Having said that, I can see several approaches to this issue. One is to send an automatic greeting to anyone who signs up on the volunteer list, which I suspect could be easily done with a template and our maintenance bot (eh, Hasteur?) something like this (with no border):
==Volunteering at DRN== (<==Talk page section header)
|
This would send the right message to new signups but without feeling that the community has pounced on them for merely signing up on the volunteer list. What you y'all think? Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I may have a suggestion for this. Why can't we ask for a prerequisite of having involved in any of the following projects (for some time, maybe a week or so, or based on no. of cases handled); Third opinion (or) RSN (or) BLPN (or) NORN? So that we can evaluate his/her competency in solving issues.. Won't that be a good minimum requirement? Regards— ☮ JAaron95 Talk 05:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
As KeithBob and the other editors say, we have various sorts of "new" editors. We have experienced editors who signed up here years ago and only mediate a case once in a while, or who signed up and never mediate. That is all right, although it does raise questions as to why they put themselves on the volunteer list. Maybe they are waiting for a case in their special area of knowledge. (Maybe a zoologist is waiting for an article about a species. If so, that is reasonable restraint.) I agree with the concept of a welcome template for volunteers. I think that it should be fine for any other experienced or semi-experienced volunteer to provide the welcome (just like any Wikipedian can welcome Wikipedians). I don't think that we need formal rules about welcoming. (That is certainly less important than rules about how to deal with cases.). I think that it is important that we be perceived as a friendly community to our own volunteers. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
At the same time, as we know, we recently had a bad experience with a completely unqualified volunteer who caused damage both here and elsewhere. Then we had another very inexperienced volunteer sign up, and that was just mutually unfortunate. FNN and another volunteer were mutually a little harsh, for understandable reasons, for which no real fault should be assigned. My suggestion is that there be language in the welcome template that says that we have found that experience in Wikipedia is important to being an effective volunteer, and that it recommend that inexperienced editors who want to help with dispute resolution are encouraged to do so at third opinion, by observing here, and by observing at the specialized noticeboards, familiarizing themselves with the appropriate policies, and then getting involved there. That is, you need to be familiar with the reliable source policy at the reliable source noticeboard, with the biographies of living persons policy and the biographies of living persons noticeboard, and so on. You really need to know multiple policies here, given how disputes go all over. So I think that a welcome template that suggests ways for new editors to get involved in dispute resolution is a good idea, and might help avoid things like the FNN matter. (I am not sure that anything would have prevented TEOATW, and who upset many of us.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm little bit concerned in the way Human3015 is working. First, he used the word defeat, pending a comment from the OP. B, he started adding the contentious material immediately after the full-protection expired even as the case was still in progress. C, he placed {{Ds/alert}} on the OPs talk page when OP reverted his edit with an edit summary, 'a DRN case is in progress'. I would not expect this kind of conduct (provoking actions/statements) from one who is already a Volunteer here. In fact I would expect a involved party, who is a Volunteer, to be an example for the OP. If a Volunteer performs these kind of actions, in no way can I justify the actions of a non-volunteer. Regards— ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My reply in response to User:Jaaron95 at the Project named Rosogolla discussion.
Refer: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Rosogolla_discussion
@[[ User:Jaaron95)
My Comments (for better mutual understanding)
What I disagree to your specific statements are those that Rosogolla is not only original name, it also is the desert’s formal name therefore, most common and familiar name should be Rosogolla and not Rasgulla.
The reasons that almost all the Bengali speaking community, both in West Bengal and Bangladesh use the desert Rosogolla and they spell it exactly as Rosogolla,
Many Non-Bengali speaking communities in India call and spell it as Rasgulla, where very few of them actually use Rosogolla or Rasgulla.
Therefore, considering Rosogolla's comparable actual usage, and the desert’s familiarity with total number of people calling the desert as Rosogolla is much more above the number of people who prefer to call it as Rasgulla. If you do not agree with my statement, please have a little more research for the validity of my statement, you will come to know what is correct.
Therefore, your understanding between the name Rosogolla and Rasgulla does not seem to be correct.
Thanks
Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) ( talk) 10:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I went through the discussion in the top of this page and volunteers make note of 'hold' option in {{ DR case status}}. As no one seems to oppose this option, I went ahead and added it back to {{DR case status}} (feel free to revert, if anyone opposes). I too think that's necessary for one time or the other. If fellow volunteers agree on this, I think Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering should be updated. And the bot doesn't seem to recognize the 'hold' value, rather it treats it like a new discussion. Should Hasteur be made aware of that? Regards— ☮ JAaron95 Talk 16:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
One ping only, Vasili (Cpt Marko Ramius The Hunt for Red October (film)). I have no objections to one ping, but when multiple people ping me in the same thread within 2 hours, I start to get annoyed. Hearing no objections, the code has been pushed to the ToolLabs cluster and a manual run was executed. I consider this request closed. Hasteur ( talk) 22:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Monsieur @ Hasteur: The new discussion (last case) was put to hold 'cause of this edit.. Or is it something else? Confused. Regards— ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
An article that I am moderating has a page protection tag because it was fully protected for one week. The "edit this page" tab is now visible, so that the protection has expired. Should I remove the tag? Since the tag is now inaccurate, removing it seems like a neutral thing to do. (The page protection was, in my view, entirely appropriate, and it caused the discussion to be brought here.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I had to fail the case. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Steve has been away for several days due to RW matters. With his blessing, I've become acting coordinator until he can return. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 19:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Testing out the DRN shoes again, see if they fit with my schedule... I'm aiming to AGF as best as possible, but I did notice while looking at the article in question that Brenquinn and Bquinn207, an editor from back in June as far as the edit history goes, do seem to be dead ringers for one another. Maybe a case of a lost password, but still doesn't look very good, especially not if there is a COI as Donoreavenue proposes. BLUSTER⌉⌊ BLASTER 12:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, TransporterMan, for restating the importance of neutrality. It isn't always easy to be neutral, especially since some editors come here wanting the moderator to take their "side". I would just like to clarify that in cases where it is clear at the outset that there is a conduct issue, such as legal threats, persistent copyright violation, or defamatory BLP content, it is probably better not to open the case here at all. Is that mostly correct? (I know that, in some cases, copyright violation is the result of an enthusiastic editor who hasn't been taught to rewrite in his own words, and that then maybe one of us can help, but usually that goes to the Teahouse.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
My next question, which I have probably asked too many times, is what if anything a volunteer here can reasonably do after a case has failed. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
One question that occurred to me, looking at the new case: when there are parties to a case, either listed in the application or not, that haven't been notified of the DRN filing, is it exclusively the filer's responsibility to make sure they're notified, or do we have some part to play in that-- and if so, to what extent? Should we go to the point of actively checking the article talkpage and history for anyone who appears to be part of the dispute and make sure they know about the DRN thread (probably in a general notice posted on the TP linking to it, I'd imagine, rather than posting to their individual talkpages), or does our due diligence only extend to making sure the listed parties are notified, and the rest is on the filer/involved parties to make happen? BLUSTER⌉⌊ BLASTER 17:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
As for who's listed and who isn't, I do check the talk page. If there's a party or two missing, I add, create initial response sections, and notify them; if there's more, however, I'll usually do an administrative close on the case with a closing remark which says,"Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just reminding the filing editor that it is his obligation to notify the other participants of this filing by leaving a note on their user talk pages. The template mentioned at the top of this page can be used for that purpose or a custom-written note. If those notices are not given in the next two or three days — and placing a notice on the article talk page will not suffice — this listing will be closed as abandoned."
Clear as mud? Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 19:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)"Administrative close. There are quite a few other editors at the article talk page who have participated in this discussion. It is unfair to the volunteers here to have to add them and create initial response sections for all of them. Please feel free to refile and add and notify all participants in the discussion."
North of Eden, I've gone ahead and changed the DoNotArchiveUntill parameter of both of your cases to Aug 31. One of which was already archived, and I had to cut and paste the thread. I think you should change the dates appropriately until we figure out an alternative. @ Hasteur: Can we make the bot sense all of the following parameters—none, active, open, inprogress, needassist, relist, relisted, review, resolve, resolved and hold? And stop it from archiving the case which has any of the strings above? Or else, make it archive only if these parameters—close, fail and failed are found? (After the DoNotArchiveUntill date ofcourse) Regards— ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
{{
DRN case status}}
. IF we decide to kick LowercaseSigmaBot3 (by removing MizaBot config) then I can work on designing a 4x a day process to sweep up any threads that are both in a terminal state and 48 hours un-edited. I need to hear positive confirmation that this is a desired behavior (especially from some senior members (
Steven Crossin—
Guy Macon—
TransporterMan—
PhilKnight—
Keithbob) of the group) as we've been using this solution for a long time.
Hasteur (
talk)
13:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)I concur and hereby withdraw my proposal. Didn't know it was part of a complex structure. Also, took note of we should discuss and decide what we want to do before anyone pings Hasteur. Thanks Guy Macon, TransporterMan for making it crystal clear. And sorry Hasteur if I've wasted your time. Regards— ☮ JAaron95 Talk 14:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear there are 2 interlocking processes. One is the DNAU which is set to 14 days by default as part of a DRN case filing. The second is the archiving parameters which says that any thread (that isn't excluded by a DNAU that is not yet expired) that has not recieved a single signed post in 48 hours is eligible to be archived. Hasteur ( talk) 19:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The last two cases that were declined are not listed by the bot at all. It states that the last update was at 0430 GMT on Thursday, and it is now about 0120 GMT on Friday. I have left a note on the talk page of User:Hasteur. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
{{
drn filing editor}}
template...
Hasteur (
talk)
01:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)There are two cases that are assigned to moderator User:North of Eden which appear to be inactive. In particular, the one about the 2016 US presidential election has been estivating for eight days. It appears that North of Eden hasn't edited for three days. Should something be done about these cases, such as a General Close due to inactivity and removing the DNAU date? Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Something needs to be done about this case. Does it need an alternate moderator, or should it be closed? Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Unless anyone objects today, I will do a general close on this case due to its inactivity, and it can be archived as a closed case rather than archived while still nominally active. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Sandra opposed to terrorism is opening the case which was closed and archived previously (probably was their ignorance). S/he also left a message on my talk page ( this one) expressing concern. Could someone please explain what they did wrong and also explain the bot updating interval as I'm quite busy right now.. Thanks and regards— ☮ JAaron95 Talk 16:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
A case has just been opened in which the filing party listed multiple IP addresses. It appears that the filing party has notified one of them, but not the others, but that they are all in the same block and so may really be the same editor. Is it necessary to notify all of them? My own thought would be to assume that they are all the same editor, but I am asking. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I tried to close a case because it was already declined, but I put a diff to the closing in my closing comments. I got the comment "No Closing Comments Detected" on display. I then deleted the diff, and it displays all right. "Level 5 - A trivial or cosmetic error". Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello every body, this discussion ended as Failed. however how its possible to failed. I think all are afraid to discuss here, because its a DRN. So all are afraid including the main party Lugnuts. Lugnuts didn't try to how he support No result by his way by starting of this discussion, but I be bold to discuss my thoughts. The Volunteer just try to Convince me only, Why not Lugnuts? If I am also sit be quite silent and follow then this discussion will be excellent. As Volunteer said Abandoned as No result that says Match abandoned Clearly by law. Then why not we use that actual term for the actual result status. The Volunteer told that "he had suspecting my conduct". How can he? Volunteer said the reliable source are secondary and we should follow the Law of ICC in his comments then why we use the source links. If we follow Laws of ICC then we should replace all score cards with ICC Laws. All the Laws applied at ICC/Reliable source, that's why we use and follow the reliable source. By Laws we can't find justice. Thank You - Srinu ( Talk | contrib) 03:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
We used all status of result from ICC/source then why not we the term Abandoned from there.
I believe and support as per cricket and all previous from wiki and as per article in wiki title Result (cricket).
No result: means it has a play and can't determined the result in cricket when all overs can't bowl. Also can't determined as per D/L Method (Taking Toss is starting of the Play) Abandoned: means it has no play and No result in cricket.
The Volunteer told that "All reliable source were failed so we should use Laws, How can he says that ICC/source failed, If source failed then why we still use the source.... Srinu ( Talk | contrib) 03:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
List of programmes_broadcast_by_Zindagi_TV is ripe for taking. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 00:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
For Serena Williams case, it's ripe. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
Can someone please check on why the page header list disagrees with the case? The page header says that the case was created by User:Wikimandia. As far as I can tell, and I am the volunteer working the case, it was not. It was created from an IP address by one of the listed editors accidentally editing logged out. So I have two questions. First, can the listing in the page header be corrected, if indeed the bot code is confused? Second, if not, can something be done? Also, Wikimandia has edited the article in dispute, but was not in the talk page discussion and has not edited since the thread was filed. Should they be invited to the discussion? (Probably, but voluntarily.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Should it have been closed as failed? If a volunteer thought that policy was clear and there was no need to open the case (although the coordinator had said that it was ripe), then shouldn't that have been a general close rather than a close as failed? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Akshardham_(Delhi)#Environmental_Violations - Should this debate be moved here? There does not seem to be any actual progress but the article page is still forming a WP:BATTLEGROUND and there has been discussion that seems to warrant the label "extensive discussion". Just curious, Dr Crazy 102 ( talk) 11:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
I am new to wikipedia and need some advice. I have edited a page which another user has subsequently had issues with. They have amended the page and remove aspects they think are too biased. They have also flagged the article as having issues. I am happy to leave the sections out they took offence to but I would like the box at the top 'this page has issues' to be removed. How should I go about doing this?
Thanks very much in advance for your help ~~82.41.75.224~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.75.224 ( talk) 09:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The editor Prephysics has posted an unsigned comment stating that I am displaying bias as moderator and saying that they wish to proceed to a "higher unbiased authority". RFM is available, but I doubt that the other editors will agree to mediation. RFC is always available. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
First, the unsigned comment hasn't been signed by User:SineBot. Is DRN excluded from bot signing, or is there a reason why the post wasn't signed by SineBot? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Second, the comment isn't listed as the most recent edit. That is probably because that comment was posted as a level-2 heading, and the bot is using the level-2 headings to parse the sections. This is probably nothing that User:Hasteur or anyone else can do anything about, just a limitation. I will be downgrading the heading of the post. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I will be withdrawing as moderator and setting the case status to "stale" (Needs Attention) after posting my own reply as to how the case can proceed. If anyone else wants to take over as moderator, they are welcome to do so. If so, please mark the case as open again. I don't recommend that anyone else take over as moderator, but that is anyone's call. My recommendation is that another volunteer formally close the case and provide their explanation of the closure. Any comments about my handling of the case are welcome. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Because if there isn't, we need one, in my opinion. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
IMHO, the rational solution is to formally require that interlocutors be entirely divorced from any personal positions in the dispute resolution - that is, they should not in any way indicate any positions they hold on a topic, and quite specifically should be held to a standard where they do not even comment on any individual editor either on the mediation page or on any other pages at all.
This clearly would also require that such interlocutors not have been active disputants on any related discussions - i.e. that they be mute about any opinions of their own about the topics being discussed, and especially about those editors who are seeking to reach agreements, and only seek to facilitate the disputing editors reaching accommodations among themselves. They should never be in a position of being seen as "interested parties" and should be barred from commenting about any participating editors in any namespace on or off Wiki.
If such behaviour were required, I doubt that Andy would find any cavil with such a person. The solution is not "let's have a new formal complaint process" added to dispute resolution, but in preventing any cause to complain about behaviour therein. Collect ( talk) 00:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Is there a formal procedure for banning nuisances? Because if there isn't, we need one, in my opinion. Brian Josephson ( talk) 15:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Guy missed a word out originally, which he has now corrected. He was not suggesting that you refer the dispute to WP:ANI as you appear to have assumed but (if I have understood him correctly) that, in the circumstances, if you continued to press this point it might be appropriate for you to be so referred. Only a suggestion, which others might or might not feel it appropriate to take up. Brian Josephson ( talk) 20:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
Should you feel this needs to go further, Control of mediation states:
Rules, conditions, edit control, and closures of incivility or conduct comments may restrict the manner [1] and sequence in which participants in a mediation present their positions and the manner and sequence in which discussion is conducted, but rules, conditions, and edit control must not be otherwise formulated or applied in a manner which prevents a user from participating in the mediation or which prevents a user from fully presenting their position regarding their content issues. If a user feels that a mediator is formulating or applying the rules in an unfair manner, the user should first discuss the matter with the mediator. With a Mediation Committee case, if the user is still not satisfied, the user should discuss the issues with the Mediation Committee as a whole. While rules and conditions should, to the greatest degree practical, be clearly stated as part of the mediator's offer to accept the mediation, a mediator may modify or supplement the rules and conditions during the process of the mediation to meet new or unforeseen difficulties or to better manage the mediation. The purpose of mediation is to secure a result that benefits the encyclopedia—not to ensure fairness for any one contributor. Mediators work with disputants but for the encyclopedia.
From everything I am reading, Guy's only mistake was forgetting a handful of edits on the article in question but that it was not part of the dispute and was not a major contribution. If there is no further connection I see no reason to object to anything Guy has said or done. Yes, it would have been enough to disqualify Guy as mediator. Both parties may seek intervention by admin if they feel they have cause but, it should be noted that this looks very similar to the disruption we endured once before. If this escalates the initiating editor should at least be aware of:
Any administrator [2] may upon request by a mediator, and after a single warning by either the mediator or the administrator, block, ban, or otherwise sanction a participant who continues to participate in mediation in a manner which violates the rules established by the mediator or the editing rights granted to the mediator. [3]
References
Had Guy wanted, he could have warned you of any Wikipedia violation he saw that was related to the dispute, then asked an admin to block you if needed to discourage the behavior from continuing...if bad enough. The place to seek assistance that is not admin intervention is the mediation committee. Good luck and happy editing.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 05:53, 20 September 2015 (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 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
I can see a new editor has included his/her name ( User:Fruit Nd Nut) in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteers, who's newer than 'Editor of all things Wikipedia'. How come we get new volunteers very often? What's attracting new editors here (to be volunteers in particular)? *sigh*-- ☮ JAaron95 Talk 16:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
(Jaaron95) please do not mistake me being new as being incompetent in volunteering here. I am in fact in I.T so although new, am more then capable. Perhaps I may suggest with strong unconstructive opinions like that YOU may reconsider volunteering here.-- Fruit Nd Nut ( talk) 17:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
(JAaron95) I understand what you are saying, it must be somewhat frustrating when new editors volunteer and make contributions when they are not totally familiar with the processes, I can assure you that I only want to make helpful contributions and will not do so until I have complete understanding of the gudelines....ect....ect. best regards-- Fruit Nd Nut ( talk) 17:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I am not raising this issue to imply criticism of anything or anyone in relation to the Fruit Nd Nut situation, above, and FSM knows that we were gun shy after the recent The Editor of All Things Wikipedia flap, but I have to wonder if we're doing ourselves a disservice by immediately reacting to an experienced editor merely signing up on the volunteer list. As Human3015 has pointed out above and on FNN's talk page, there are many, many editors who sign up on our volunteer list and go for a very, very long time without ever making an edit on our main page (indeed, there are a gazillion who sign up there and never darken our cyberdoor again, just like there are a gazillion who sign up on Wikiproject participant lists <ahem> but never participate). While I imagine that most of those "joiners" will never do anything here there may be a very small number like Human3015 who do and making a preemptive "you're not experienced enough to take part here" strike on those who are inexperienced, before they show any sign of actually participating, may I fear not only prevent them from ever doing so but run them off from Wikipedia altogether (as is apparently what has happened with FNN). Having said that, I can see several approaches to this issue. One is to send an automatic greeting to anyone who signs up on the volunteer list, which I suspect could be easily done with a template and our maintenance bot (eh, Hasteur?) something like this (with no border):
==Volunteering at DRN== (<==Talk page section header)
|
This would send the right message to new signups but without feeling that the community has pounced on them for merely signing up on the volunteer list. What you y'all think? Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I may have a suggestion for this. Why can't we ask for a prerequisite of having involved in any of the following projects (for some time, maybe a week or so, or based on no. of cases handled); Third opinion (or) RSN (or) BLPN (or) NORN? So that we can evaluate his/her competency in solving issues.. Won't that be a good minimum requirement? Regards— ☮ JAaron95 Talk 05:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
As KeithBob and the other editors say, we have various sorts of "new" editors. We have experienced editors who signed up here years ago and only mediate a case once in a while, or who signed up and never mediate. That is all right, although it does raise questions as to why they put themselves on the volunteer list. Maybe they are waiting for a case in their special area of knowledge. (Maybe a zoologist is waiting for an article about a species. If so, that is reasonable restraint.) I agree with the concept of a welcome template for volunteers. I think that it should be fine for any other experienced or semi-experienced volunteer to provide the welcome (just like any Wikipedian can welcome Wikipedians). I don't think that we need formal rules about welcoming. (That is certainly less important than rules about how to deal with cases.). I think that it is important that we be perceived as a friendly community to our own volunteers. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
At the same time, as we know, we recently had a bad experience with a completely unqualified volunteer who caused damage both here and elsewhere. Then we had another very inexperienced volunteer sign up, and that was just mutually unfortunate. FNN and another volunteer were mutually a little harsh, for understandable reasons, for which no real fault should be assigned. My suggestion is that there be language in the welcome template that says that we have found that experience in Wikipedia is important to being an effective volunteer, and that it recommend that inexperienced editors who want to help with dispute resolution are encouraged to do so at third opinion, by observing here, and by observing at the specialized noticeboards, familiarizing themselves with the appropriate policies, and then getting involved there. That is, you need to be familiar with the reliable source policy at the reliable source noticeboard, with the biographies of living persons policy and the biographies of living persons noticeboard, and so on. You really need to know multiple policies here, given how disputes go all over. So I think that a welcome template that suggests ways for new editors to get involved in dispute resolution is a good idea, and might help avoid things like the FNN matter. (I am not sure that anything would have prevented TEOATW, and who upset many of us.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm little bit concerned in the way Human3015 is working. First, he used the word defeat, pending a comment from the OP. B, he started adding the contentious material immediately after the full-protection expired even as the case was still in progress. C, he placed {{Ds/alert}} on the OPs talk page when OP reverted his edit with an edit summary, 'a DRN case is in progress'. I would not expect this kind of conduct (provoking actions/statements) from one who is already a Volunteer here. In fact I would expect a involved party, who is a Volunteer, to be an example for the OP. If a Volunteer performs these kind of actions, in no way can I justify the actions of a non-volunteer. Regards— ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My reply in response to User:Jaaron95 at the Project named Rosogolla discussion.
Refer: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Rosogolla_discussion
@[[ User:Jaaron95)
My Comments (for better mutual understanding)
What I disagree to your specific statements are those that Rosogolla is not only original name, it also is the desert’s formal name therefore, most common and familiar name should be Rosogolla and not Rasgulla.
The reasons that almost all the Bengali speaking community, both in West Bengal and Bangladesh use the desert Rosogolla and they spell it exactly as Rosogolla,
Many Non-Bengali speaking communities in India call and spell it as Rasgulla, where very few of them actually use Rosogolla or Rasgulla.
Therefore, considering Rosogolla's comparable actual usage, and the desert’s familiarity with total number of people calling the desert as Rosogolla is much more above the number of people who prefer to call it as Rasgulla. If you do not agree with my statement, please have a little more research for the validity of my statement, you will come to know what is correct.
Therefore, your understanding between the name Rosogolla and Rasgulla does not seem to be correct.
Thanks
Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) ( talk) 10:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I went through the discussion in the top of this page and volunteers make note of 'hold' option in {{ DR case status}}. As no one seems to oppose this option, I went ahead and added it back to {{DR case status}} (feel free to revert, if anyone opposes). I too think that's necessary for one time or the other. If fellow volunteers agree on this, I think Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering should be updated. And the bot doesn't seem to recognize the 'hold' value, rather it treats it like a new discussion. Should Hasteur be made aware of that? Regards— ☮ JAaron95 Talk 16:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
One ping only, Vasili (Cpt Marko Ramius The Hunt for Red October (film)). I have no objections to one ping, but when multiple people ping me in the same thread within 2 hours, I start to get annoyed. Hearing no objections, the code has been pushed to the ToolLabs cluster and a manual run was executed. I consider this request closed. Hasteur ( talk) 22:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Monsieur @ Hasteur: The new discussion (last case) was put to hold 'cause of this edit.. Or is it something else? Confused. Regards— ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
An article that I am moderating has a page protection tag because it was fully protected for one week. The "edit this page" tab is now visible, so that the protection has expired. Should I remove the tag? Since the tag is now inaccurate, removing it seems like a neutral thing to do. (The page protection was, in my view, entirely appropriate, and it caused the discussion to be brought here.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I had to fail the case. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Steve has been away for several days due to RW matters. With his blessing, I've become acting coordinator until he can return. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 19:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Testing out the DRN shoes again, see if they fit with my schedule... I'm aiming to AGF as best as possible, but I did notice while looking at the article in question that Brenquinn and Bquinn207, an editor from back in June as far as the edit history goes, do seem to be dead ringers for one another. Maybe a case of a lost password, but still doesn't look very good, especially not if there is a COI as Donoreavenue proposes. BLUSTER⌉⌊ BLASTER 12:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, TransporterMan, for restating the importance of neutrality. It isn't always easy to be neutral, especially since some editors come here wanting the moderator to take their "side". I would just like to clarify that in cases where it is clear at the outset that there is a conduct issue, such as legal threats, persistent copyright violation, or defamatory BLP content, it is probably better not to open the case here at all. Is that mostly correct? (I know that, in some cases, copyright violation is the result of an enthusiastic editor who hasn't been taught to rewrite in his own words, and that then maybe one of us can help, but usually that goes to the Teahouse.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
My next question, which I have probably asked too many times, is what if anything a volunteer here can reasonably do after a case has failed. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
One question that occurred to me, looking at the new case: when there are parties to a case, either listed in the application or not, that haven't been notified of the DRN filing, is it exclusively the filer's responsibility to make sure they're notified, or do we have some part to play in that-- and if so, to what extent? Should we go to the point of actively checking the article talkpage and history for anyone who appears to be part of the dispute and make sure they know about the DRN thread (probably in a general notice posted on the TP linking to it, I'd imagine, rather than posting to their individual talkpages), or does our due diligence only extend to making sure the listed parties are notified, and the rest is on the filer/involved parties to make happen? BLUSTER⌉⌊ BLASTER 17:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
As for who's listed and who isn't, I do check the talk page. If there's a party or two missing, I add, create initial response sections, and notify them; if there's more, however, I'll usually do an administrative close on the case with a closing remark which says,"Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just reminding the filing editor that it is his obligation to notify the other participants of this filing by leaving a note on their user talk pages. The template mentioned at the top of this page can be used for that purpose or a custom-written note. If those notices are not given in the next two or three days — and placing a notice on the article talk page will not suffice — this listing will be closed as abandoned."
Clear as mud? Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 19:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)"Administrative close. There are quite a few other editors at the article talk page who have participated in this discussion. It is unfair to the volunteers here to have to add them and create initial response sections for all of them. Please feel free to refile and add and notify all participants in the discussion."
North of Eden, I've gone ahead and changed the DoNotArchiveUntill parameter of both of your cases to Aug 31. One of which was already archived, and I had to cut and paste the thread. I think you should change the dates appropriately until we figure out an alternative. @ Hasteur: Can we make the bot sense all of the following parameters—none, active, open, inprogress, needassist, relist, relisted, review, resolve, resolved and hold? And stop it from archiving the case which has any of the strings above? Or else, make it archive only if these parameters—close, fail and failed are found? (After the DoNotArchiveUntill date ofcourse) Regards— ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
{{
DRN case status}}
. IF we decide to kick LowercaseSigmaBot3 (by removing MizaBot config) then I can work on designing a 4x a day process to sweep up any threads that are both in a terminal state and 48 hours un-edited. I need to hear positive confirmation that this is a desired behavior (especially from some senior members (
Steven Crossin—
Guy Macon—
TransporterMan—
PhilKnight—
Keithbob) of the group) as we've been using this solution for a long time.
Hasteur (
talk)
13:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)I concur and hereby withdraw my proposal. Didn't know it was part of a complex structure. Also, took note of we should discuss and decide what we want to do before anyone pings Hasteur. Thanks Guy Macon, TransporterMan for making it crystal clear. And sorry Hasteur if I've wasted your time. Regards— ☮ JAaron95 Talk 14:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear there are 2 interlocking processes. One is the DNAU which is set to 14 days by default as part of a DRN case filing. The second is the archiving parameters which says that any thread (that isn't excluded by a DNAU that is not yet expired) that has not recieved a single signed post in 48 hours is eligible to be archived. Hasteur ( talk) 19:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The last two cases that were declined are not listed by the bot at all. It states that the last update was at 0430 GMT on Thursday, and it is now about 0120 GMT on Friday. I have left a note on the talk page of User:Hasteur. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
{{
drn filing editor}}
template...
Hasteur (
talk)
01:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)There are two cases that are assigned to moderator User:North of Eden which appear to be inactive. In particular, the one about the 2016 US presidential election has been estivating for eight days. It appears that North of Eden hasn't edited for three days. Should something be done about these cases, such as a General Close due to inactivity and removing the DNAU date? Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Something needs to be done about this case. Does it need an alternate moderator, or should it be closed? Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Unless anyone objects today, I will do a general close on this case due to its inactivity, and it can be archived as a closed case rather than archived while still nominally active. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Sandra opposed to terrorism is opening the case which was closed and archived previously (probably was their ignorance). S/he also left a message on my talk page ( this one) expressing concern. Could someone please explain what they did wrong and also explain the bot updating interval as I'm quite busy right now.. Thanks and regards— ☮ JAaron95 Talk 16:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
A case has just been opened in which the filing party listed multiple IP addresses. It appears that the filing party has notified one of them, but not the others, but that they are all in the same block and so may really be the same editor. Is it necessary to notify all of them? My own thought would be to assume that they are all the same editor, but I am asking. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I tried to close a case because it was already declined, but I put a diff to the closing in my closing comments. I got the comment "No Closing Comments Detected" on display. I then deleted the diff, and it displays all right. "Level 5 - A trivial or cosmetic error". Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello every body, this discussion ended as Failed. however how its possible to failed. I think all are afraid to discuss here, because its a DRN. So all are afraid including the main party Lugnuts. Lugnuts didn't try to how he support No result by his way by starting of this discussion, but I be bold to discuss my thoughts. The Volunteer just try to Convince me only, Why not Lugnuts? If I am also sit be quite silent and follow then this discussion will be excellent. As Volunteer said Abandoned as No result that says Match abandoned Clearly by law. Then why not we use that actual term for the actual result status. The Volunteer told that "he had suspecting my conduct". How can he? Volunteer said the reliable source are secondary and we should follow the Law of ICC in his comments then why we use the source links. If we follow Laws of ICC then we should replace all score cards with ICC Laws. All the Laws applied at ICC/Reliable source, that's why we use and follow the reliable source. By Laws we can't find justice. Thank You - Srinu ( Talk | contrib) 03:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
We used all status of result from ICC/source then why not we the term Abandoned from there.
I believe and support as per cricket and all previous from wiki and as per article in wiki title Result (cricket).
No result: means it has a play and can't determined the result in cricket when all overs can't bowl. Also can't determined as per D/L Method (Taking Toss is starting of the Play) Abandoned: means it has no play and No result in cricket.
The Volunteer told that "All reliable source were failed so we should use Laws, How can he says that ICC/source failed, If source failed then why we still use the source.... Srinu ( Talk | contrib) 03:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
List of programmes_broadcast_by_Zindagi_TV is ripe for taking. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 00:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
For Serena Williams case, it's ripe. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
Can someone please check on why the page header list disagrees with the case? The page header says that the case was created by User:Wikimandia. As far as I can tell, and I am the volunteer working the case, it was not. It was created from an IP address by one of the listed editors accidentally editing logged out. So I have two questions. First, can the listing in the page header be corrected, if indeed the bot code is confused? Second, if not, can something be done? Also, Wikimandia has edited the article in dispute, but was not in the talk page discussion and has not edited since the thread was filed. Should they be invited to the discussion? (Probably, but voluntarily.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Should it have been closed as failed? If a volunteer thought that policy was clear and there was no need to open the case (although the coordinator had said that it was ripe), then shouldn't that have been a general close rather than a close as failed? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Akshardham_(Delhi)#Environmental_Violations - Should this debate be moved here? There does not seem to be any actual progress but the article page is still forming a WP:BATTLEGROUND and there has been discussion that seems to warrant the label "extensive discussion". Just curious, Dr Crazy 102 ( talk) 11:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
I am new to wikipedia and need some advice. I have edited a page which another user has subsequently had issues with. They have amended the page and remove aspects they think are too biased. They have also flagged the article as having issues. I am happy to leave the sections out they took offence to but I would like the box at the top 'this page has issues' to be removed. How should I go about doing this?
Thanks very much in advance for your help ~~82.41.75.224~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.75.224 ( talk) 09:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The editor Prephysics has posted an unsigned comment stating that I am displaying bias as moderator and saying that they wish to proceed to a "higher unbiased authority". RFM is available, but I doubt that the other editors will agree to mediation. RFC is always available. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
First, the unsigned comment hasn't been signed by User:SineBot. Is DRN excluded from bot signing, or is there a reason why the post wasn't signed by SineBot? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Second, the comment isn't listed as the most recent edit. That is probably because that comment was posted as a level-2 heading, and the bot is using the level-2 headings to parse the sections. This is probably nothing that User:Hasteur or anyone else can do anything about, just a limitation. I will be downgrading the heading of the post. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I will be withdrawing as moderator and setting the case status to "stale" (Needs Attention) after posting my own reply as to how the case can proceed. If anyone else wants to take over as moderator, they are welcome to do so. If so, please mark the case as open again. I don't recommend that anyone else take over as moderator, but that is anyone's call. My recommendation is that another volunteer formally close the case and provide their explanation of the closure. Any comments about my handling of the case are welcome. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Because if there isn't, we need one, in my opinion. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
IMHO, the rational solution is to formally require that interlocutors be entirely divorced from any personal positions in the dispute resolution - that is, they should not in any way indicate any positions they hold on a topic, and quite specifically should be held to a standard where they do not even comment on any individual editor either on the mediation page or on any other pages at all.
This clearly would also require that such interlocutors not have been active disputants on any related discussions - i.e. that they be mute about any opinions of their own about the topics being discussed, and especially about those editors who are seeking to reach agreements, and only seek to facilitate the disputing editors reaching accommodations among themselves. They should never be in a position of being seen as "interested parties" and should be barred from commenting about any participating editors in any namespace on or off Wiki.
If such behaviour were required, I doubt that Andy would find any cavil with such a person. The solution is not "let's have a new formal complaint process" added to dispute resolution, but in preventing any cause to complain about behaviour therein. Collect ( talk) 00:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Is there a formal procedure for banning nuisances? Because if there isn't, we need one, in my opinion. Brian Josephson ( talk) 15:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Guy missed a word out originally, which he has now corrected. He was not suggesting that you refer the dispute to WP:ANI as you appear to have assumed but (if I have understood him correctly) that, in the circumstances, if you continued to press this point it might be appropriate for you to be so referred. Only a suggestion, which others might or might not feel it appropriate to take up. Brian Josephson ( talk) 20:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
Should you feel this needs to go further, Control of mediation states:
Rules, conditions, edit control, and closures of incivility or conduct comments may restrict the manner [1] and sequence in which participants in a mediation present their positions and the manner and sequence in which discussion is conducted, but rules, conditions, and edit control must not be otherwise formulated or applied in a manner which prevents a user from participating in the mediation or which prevents a user from fully presenting their position regarding their content issues. If a user feels that a mediator is formulating or applying the rules in an unfair manner, the user should first discuss the matter with the mediator. With a Mediation Committee case, if the user is still not satisfied, the user should discuss the issues with the Mediation Committee as a whole. While rules and conditions should, to the greatest degree practical, be clearly stated as part of the mediator's offer to accept the mediation, a mediator may modify or supplement the rules and conditions during the process of the mediation to meet new or unforeseen difficulties or to better manage the mediation. The purpose of mediation is to secure a result that benefits the encyclopedia—not to ensure fairness for any one contributor. Mediators work with disputants but for the encyclopedia.
From everything I am reading, Guy's only mistake was forgetting a handful of edits on the article in question but that it was not part of the dispute and was not a major contribution. If there is no further connection I see no reason to object to anything Guy has said or done. Yes, it would have been enough to disqualify Guy as mediator. Both parties may seek intervention by admin if they feel they have cause but, it should be noted that this looks very similar to the disruption we endured once before. If this escalates the initiating editor should at least be aware of:
Any administrator [2] may upon request by a mediator, and after a single warning by either the mediator or the administrator, block, ban, or otherwise sanction a participant who continues to participate in mediation in a manner which violates the rules established by the mediator or the editing rights granted to the mediator. [3]
References
Had Guy wanted, he could have warned you of any Wikipedia violation he saw that was related to the dispute, then asked an admin to block you if needed to discourage the behavior from continuing...if bad enough. The place to seek assistance that is not admin intervention is the mediation committee. Good luck and happy editing.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 05:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)