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 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
The bot marks cases as Needs Assist and Stale when cases are current and in progress. The reason this happens (I believe) because the bot invokes those labels after a preset amount of time. Several of us have discussed this problem before and the preset date was extended (see prior discussion here) but it is still problematic and leads to confusion and frustration amongst volunteers and participants. I suggest we eliminate those labels and just have five status labels: NEW, IN PROGRESS, CLOSED, FAILED, RESOLVED. What do others think? Earwig, Guy Macon, TransporterMan-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
We really need these changes.The current system is counterproductive.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
It's really annoying when you folks suggest a change, have me implement it, and then act confused about it later. I can't understand which alternative is better. You seem to have a problem with in progress because it "keeps volunteers away", even though in progress used to be open (and still is in the bot's code), which is less ambiguous in that respect. I'll clarify that in progress's label is determined by a template, not the bot in any way. Do you not want a distinction between in progress and new? Then how do you distinguish between cases that are attended and unattended? Do you want to keep it but require volunteers to set it themselves? Then what's the point of the bot at all? It seems every aspect of the bot is constantly being called into question somehow. Not only that, but apparently I'm reluctant to fix problems despite numerous complaints. Well, in my opinion, I've made clear attempts to understand and work around a confusing process that I have no personal involvement in. This isn't working, so I've decided to shut down the clerkbot indefinitely. You know where the code is and you're welcome to adapt it yourself, as specified by the terms of the MIT License. Thanks. — Earwig talk 02:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Mdann52:, if you could get some bot running temporarily (as DRN does have a fair bit of upkeep without it) at least for the time being, that'd be appreciated. Definitely agree the function of the bot needs to be re-thought, but I think the time that our volunteers have is best spent resolving disputes rather than doing filing work, so for the time being let's have a bot that does the basics (as the previous one did) and we can discuss the details about changing it below. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 09:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
But there is an active ANI about the editor. While that ANI is on another subject it does touch on this subject . if another volunteer would like to re-open it I will not object or revert.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 01:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm inclined to reopen this, but I can't because I have a conflict of interest with one of the participants which might be seen as biasing my actions. It might help some other volunteer make that decision (i.e. either to reopen the case or second your action with a note here), Mark, if you might say how you see this case touching on the matter in dispute at ANI. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 13:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
More to the point - the discussion at the article talk page appears to be reaching a consensus, and this DRN case would likely not make the consensus arrive more quickly, nor is DRN a reasonable substitute for ongoing discussions at the article talk page. Collect ( talk) 13:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I have added content to our DRN guideline that were not previously there, that seem to be appropriate (the bolded parts are the new additions):
*If you have had past dealings (either positive or negative) with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in the dispute which would give the appearance of bias, do not act as a volunteer on that dispute or open or close the dispute. If an editor objects to your involvement in a case, you should withdraw from the case or initiate a discussion on the DRN talk page so the community can decide if a new volunteer should step in.
As always, feel free to revert if anyone disagrees or it is felt that a discussion should begin first.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 19:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Per a prior discussion and consensus I've requested a change to the filing form. The request can be seen here. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Rather than point fingers and lay blame, let's take a fresh approach and define requirements for what the DRN bot should do. Frankly there are editors who are of the viewpoint "I said I wanted this three weeks ago when I told you about it yesterday, why isn't it implemented yet?" or "I think this is a good idea but I have no consensus discussion to back it up, so just make it happen". That certain volunteers have driven away one of the most prolific bot operators with constant haranging is a clear indicator that DRN does not have it's ducks in a row. Start by defining what the process should be, then define how the templates should be used, then define how the bot operates. I note from a quick review that there will need to be a handoff of the DRN case database so that we can continue forward. So can we agree to put down the clubs and work twords defining what the DRN process should be? Hasteur ( talk) 14:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I would also add that simple is good. I think the prior bot tried to get fancy and had too many features and too many labels for case status. Obviously we did not have a good system of communication with the bot manager because many DRN volunteers were very frustrated with the system and yet the way in which their feedback was communicated to the bot operator resulted in frustration from that end too. One idea is to have 3-4 experienced DRN volunteers set up a subcommittee and work with a new bot operator to design a simple system that meets the needs of the DRN volunteers. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I've updated the template using this version of the board. Please give your thoughts, and if you agree, please comment so at the bot approval request above so that we can put pressure on BRFA to let us move forward with the simple summary table. Hasteur ( talk) 18:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Especially while the bot is down, but really any time, remember that it is always best to identify yourself as a volunteer when you first edit a case. If you don't do that it isn't clear to the participants or to other volunteers why it is that you're editing the case, whether you're coming in as a volunteer or as a missed disputant or as a new disputant or something else. Welcoming the participants in the dispute is a good idea, too, as it helps set the tone for the case. How you do it is up to you, but I usually start my first edit with: "Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer here..." Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
{{
DR case status}}
template if it would have potentially qualified for a new status. Take a look at
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DRN clerk bot to see the effort that is being made to get the automated summaries put back in place.
Hasteur (
talk) 13:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Although the speedy close reason that ANI or AE already has jurisdiction at time of filing is clear enough, but the text does not say anything about what happens if the ANI/AE/etc is filed after the DRN case is already opened. Does venue auto-transfer at that point and if so can we say something that says so? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
This thread relates to this revert. I had tried to add the struck out text to the "no prior discussion" reason for speedy close
Disclaimer, I'm an involved party in a current case in which this (in my opinion) is a factor. But I waive any claim of reliance on the outcome of this discussion in that case because I think it is still a good idea for other cases in the future.
The reverting ed's edit summary asserts this is a controversial issue, so let's take a quick reading..... NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The "no extensive discussion" rule (MedCom has the same rule; at 3O it's "no thorough discussion") exists to help preserve the collaborative wiki nature of Wikipedia and to say to editors, in effect, "If you have disagreements with other editors you are expected to collaborate on working them out. If you do not desire to do that, then your dispute will remain unresolved (see WP:CONS#No consensus). Dispute resolution cannot be used as a court to adjudge your disagreement and can be used to facilitate your discussions only after you have shown a more-than-just-a-gesture effort to work them out yourself." I have closed discussions which had walls of text from both sides on the article talk page because once you eliminated all the conduct accusations and name-calling and bias, POV, and COI allegations there was little or nothing left about the content matter in dispute. I do not think that I would close one for this reason because of GishGalloping or forum-like discussion or other wall of text behavior. So I guess that I would vote C-tending-to-A because there are mere words — conduct (and related administrative matters) — which I would disregard but if there is an extensive back-and-forth discussion over anything else I probably wouldn't invoke inadequate discussion. (Just in passing: I would probably have closed this particular case as being primarily a conduct matter based on the filing editor's "How do you think we can help?" statement since he was complaining about editor bias which is a conduct matter, not a content matter. But except in cases where another volunteer — typically an very inexperienced volunteer — has made a clear and absolute error in opening a case, I will not second-guess another editor's decision to take or open a case.) Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
If there is consensus that GishGallop/forum threads don't open the door to DRN then there are various ways to address that. I'm not wedded to my approach but until someone offers another suggestion I think we should add this to the project page. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
It's been archived twice by the bot and is still looking for resolution. It's over a week and a half old dispute. Tutelary ( talk) 16:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I've made a lot of copy edits, updates and upgrades to the DRN volunteer page. Please look it over and tweak as needed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
DRN case status}}
) and nothing else. Once we have approval for that, I think defining what each of the statuses means and when it's appropriate for the case to have the status.
Hasteur (
talk) 20:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I've listed myself as acting coordinator in lieu of Steven Zhang's early departure from the role.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Steve.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about all the fuss regarding my term as coordinator - real life got in the way (mostly University exams - but I'm back, and ready to begin my term. I would however like someone else in the background to "guide" me on what to do for the first few days. I've had a look at the current status of the cases we're currently hearing, and they're either closed or being dealt with. -- The Historian ( talk) 13:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Since The Historian has only made one edit in the past 7 months, has not responded to a ping from four days ago, and we are already two weeks into the scheduled coordination period, I have re-listed myself, and re-assumed the role of DRN volunteer coordinator. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
This is very off-the-cuff...having just worked through my first DRN case (or at least the first that I couldn't close immediately on procedural grounds), I'm wondering whether DRN cases should require a minimum of three involved parties, with two-party cases being referred to the third-opinion noticeboard. In my experience 3O is generally a more expeditious process for two-party disputes, and it might free up some resources here to focus on more involved cases.
Anyway, just a thought. DonIago ( talk) 03:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Is DRN only for the article space? Or can it be used for wiki guidelines, the MOS, template docs and so on? The guide doesn't appear to say anything either way. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 09:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Thoughts? Comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the replacement of the old the-more-the-merrier strategy reflects current and best practices here at DRN. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)If you would like to contribute to a case that already has a volunteer moderator, feel free to add your insights regarding the content under discussion. Identify yourself as a volunteer and state that you are merely contributing as a regular
aneditor, not as a volunteer. If you wish to assist in leading the mediation process, it may be best to contact the DRN volunteer moderator on their talk page and express your desire to help. This is a way of showing respect for the currentvolunteermoderator and avoiding an interruption of the resolution strategy already underway. If you feel that a case is not being handled or moderated properly by another DRN volunteer then bring you concerns to the moderator's talk page or to the DRN talk page for community discussion. If you are moderating a case but cannot continue for some reason, post a notice in the case's Discussion section and on the DRN talk page asking for another volunteer to take over the discussion you have started.
OK, good comments and feedback. Combining suggestions from NewsGuy and T-man I propose this version below:
Is this OK?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The participants at this DRN case are eagerly awaiting a moderator. I don't feel comfortable taking the case as I have editing experience with two of the four participants (albeit on unrelated topics). So it might be best for someone else to step in.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
As fate would have it the two main parties have said they are working things out on the talk page and have requested the case be closed. Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
This is not a productive discussion. MrScorch has taken the case. Others may participate as they wish. Let's start over and focus on article content not each other. --Keithbob 17:40 June 23, 2014
|
---|
So my perspective mediator's first two edit summaries were "Directing a specific warning at Atlantictire for their behavior" and "Giving my 2 bits again because recipient appears to be in a IDHT coma." Yes, I am at my wit's end and keeping my cool is becoming difficult. That's why I'm here. I comment at AN/I now, because I'd like admins to get better at taking the time to learn about content and the context of a dispute... not just look for obvious violations of WP:CIVIL made by incredibly frustrated people. Let's not get touchy right off the bat because someone is saying, woah woah, it's way too soon for you to know the context and yes, in fact, I am angry and that's why I'm here. I'm here instead of edit warring. I'm not encouraged by Hasteur's introduction. Somebody else... someone who's willing to reserve judgement and patiently look over sources.-- Atlantictire ( talk) 14:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
After seeing the ordeal avove, I retracted this statement. I think it would be wise for Hasteur to sit this case out, but I won't resist him if he would like to help out. MrScorch6200 ( talk | ctrb) 20:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
|
-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Just as Keithbob said above: Enough. I believe progress can still be made here if everyone will just stop grinding these axes and let MrScorch6200 do his job. If the listing party wishes to withdraw, that is his prerogative and he may do so by saying so on the main page, but nothing is being accomplished by this discussion. —
TransporterMan (
TALK) 15:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC) (as frequent DRN volunteer)
|
---|
*cough* Over 2/3 of this diff is nothing but attacks on the opponent in the dispute. Since the warning has already been made would Keithbob or MrScorch6200 like to forcably disemvowel the post to remind a certain editor what behavior will and will not be tolerated? Hasteur ( talk) 00:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
@Transporterman regarding whether I want to continue. Hasteur needs to stay out. I think I understand now where his animosity is coming from. From now on this is not his affair. Not in the thread. Not on the talk page.-- Atlantictire ( talk) 16:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC) |
Looks like I missed a lot during the night...
MrScorch6200 (
talk |
ctrb) 17:28, 25 June 2014 (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.
I posted a more lengthy description on a page that I thought was for reporting about editors who intimate and harass other editors, on the administrative noticeboard, but was redirected here.
Basically, I am concerned regarding the deterioration in communications toward me by editor User:Montanabw, which have been over the top, intimidating, harassing, and ugly, as can be observed here: /info/en/?search=Talk:Standardbred. I would have expected the communications from an 8-year veteran on Wikipedia to be much better than what I've experienced. As a result, I will never again edit the article, Standardbred, and I have been left very disillusioned and disappointed that such conduct is acceptable on Wikipedia. I've attempted to discuss it on the editor's talk page and on the article's talk page, with a continued worsening of communications by this editor; see her comments on my talk page here: /info/en/?search=User_talk:Daniellagreen. She has threatened to report me for harassment simply for posting comments on her talk page, and to me, has evidenced communications to me that are harassing and unnecessary. Rather than my comments be a "waste" of her time, as she has stated, one could be open to compromise and a different viewpoint regarding this situation. Daniellagreen ( talk) 01:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I've been working on expanding WP:DRR. It's a graphic overview of all the dispute resolution venues available for both content and conduct. I think it's a valuable tool when counseling DRN participants about their potential next steps. The WP:DR page has great information but it can be a little overwhelming especially for new or intermediate level users. So I'm letting folks know about this other, more visual, overview of options. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I made this template so coordinators can show how proud they are of providing DRN with a smooth experience by volunteering to be coordinator. MrScorch6200 ( talk | ctrb) 23:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
This user is or has been coordinator of the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. |
Hello. Over the past couple of weeks I have run into what I can only describe as some kind of a group of Germany page editors who are repeatedly removing and reverting legitimate edits to the Germany page. These edits, I feel, follow the standard practices of Wiki editing, eg. removing POV. I have no idea how to deal with these editors who seem to have nothing less than a fanatical zeal to keep the Wiemar and Nazi section of the article exactly as it was before. Do you have any advice on what should be done in this type of situation. It seems more than apparent that using the talk page is useless (we've been having a conversation there for 2 weeks now without anything being resolved) and these editors have created so many new sections that it's absolutely impossible to have a discussion. Their constant argument is that: "This is an FA article and has been for a long time therefore it should always remain unchanged" no matter how obvious the omission of facts may be. Any help or advice you can give would be greatly appreciated, another editor, an administrator User:John has mentioned that article would no longer qualify as an FA article, would downgrading the article's ranking change anything or simply result in more unstoppable blocking by these users? Monopoly31121993 ( talk) 22:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Moderator needed for the Ghana case. I have a history with one of the participants and must recuse. If someone else could step in that would be great. Thanks! :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:28, 28 June 2014 (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.
Hi, I'm trying to develop a project to improve Wikipedia's Siduri page with custom community created multimedia and programs. This approach, if successful, could be used on other pages and hopefully make Wikipedia a more effective method for transmitting information to a visitor. An administrator deleted everything, and now I am unsure what to do and what the correct Wikipedia rules and regulations are. Are we not allowed to use our user pages to develop projects aimed at improving Wikipedia? It would be ironic, and somewhat sad, if a project aimed at improving Wikipedia was not welcome on Wikipedia. Siduri-Project ( talk) 17:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Glad it was resolved, but wrong place for this discussion
|
---|
This is the second time Denisona has randomly deleted strictly accurate and duly sourced material from an article. This time, I added it back with the proper attribution and a statement that some authorities (to wit, Denisona) seem to disagree. I see that I am FAR FROM the only person who has had issues with this person, for whom Denisova is a more appropriate moniker, if you get the pun . . . What to do? I am tired of obnoxious three-day bans and such because I disagree with editors who take it upon themselves to be capricious, subjective, and, above all, asinine. 50.128.184.140 ( talk) 15:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
|
I don't really have the time to work on it right now (though I could maybe look into it next week), but this section should really be expanded and clarified; as-is it doesn't actually detail everything that should be done when closing a case for inappropriateness. If nothing else, bolding the templates that should be added in the example might be helpful. Cheers! DonIago ( talk) 12:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I closed Talk:Abiogenesis as a violation of CANVASS, but the listing editor reverted my closure. I've re–closed it, but would invite any other regular volunteer here to examine my closure and reopen the case if they feel that my closure was inappropriate. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Unless you can call in the correct peopleWOAH THERE! You need to put that thought out of your head right now. That's canvassing and one of the fastest ways to your viewpoint being labeled as disruptive editing and being put in the padded room. Do we ask literature major graduates about theroritical physics? Why shouldn't the members of the science based wikiprojects be invited to participate in the RFC? Hasteur ( talk) 13:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
My name's Chaz, I'm the one who filed the DRN in the first place. My discussion is the result of several attempts to improve an article on Wikipedia, only to have facts, evidence (or lack thereof), and logic ignored. You can see exactly what I did and Reallyfat B. suggesting I open a DRN does not violate any sort of technicality in any way, since I did not even know what a DRN was until a few days ago. Had I known the process I would have made it myself without his suggestion. So to close my discussion based only on the fact that the DRN was premeditated by someone other than myself is unfair to me, as I spent an hour of my time creating it. Had I known that this process existed, I would have wrote up the same exact discussion, regardless of who told me about the DRN process. I put my time and effort into this thing, it needs to be heard out in full. Shandck ( talk) 20:31, 2 July 2014 (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 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
The bot marks cases as Needs Assist and Stale when cases are current and in progress. The reason this happens (I believe) because the bot invokes those labels after a preset amount of time. Several of us have discussed this problem before and the preset date was extended (see prior discussion here) but it is still problematic and leads to confusion and frustration amongst volunteers and participants. I suggest we eliminate those labels and just have five status labels: NEW, IN PROGRESS, CLOSED, FAILED, RESOLVED. What do others think? Earwig, Guy Macon, TransporterMan-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
We really need these changes.The current system is counterproductive.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
It's really annoying when you folks suggest a change, have me implement it, and then act confused about it later. I can't understand which alternative is better. You seem to have a problem with in progress because it "keeps volunteers away", even though in progress used to be open (and still is in the bot's code), which is less ambiguous in that respect. I'll clarify that in progress's label is determined by a template, not the bot in any way. Do you not want a distinction between in progress and new? Then how do you distinguish between cases that are attended and unattended? Do you want to keep it but require volunteers to set it themselves? Then what's the point of the bot at all? It seems every aspect of the bot is constantly being called into question somehow. Not only that, but apparently I'm reluctant to fix problems despite numerous complaints. Well, in my opinion, I've made clear attempts to understand and work around a confusing process that I have no personal involvement in. This isn't working, so I've decided to shut down the clerkbot indefinitely. You know where the code is and you're welcome to adapt it yourself, as specified by the terms of the MIT License. Thanks. — Earwig talk 02:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Mdann52:, if you could get some bot running temporarily (as DRN does have a fair bit of upkeep without it) at least for the time being, that'd be appreciated. Definitely agree the function of the bot needs to be re-thought, but I think the time that our volunteers have is best spent resolving disputes rather than doing filing work, so for the time being let's have a bot that does the basics (as the previous one did) and we can discuss the details about changing it below. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 09:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
But there is an active ANI about the editor. While that ANI is on another subject it does touch on this subject . if another volunteer would like to re-open it I will not object or revert.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 01:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm inclined to reopen this, but I can't because I have a conflict of interest with one of the participants which might be seen as biasing my actions. It might help some other volunteer make that decision (i.e. either to reopen the case or second your action with a note here), Mark, if you might say how you see this case touching on the matter in dispute at ANI. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 13:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
More to the point - the discussion at the article talk page appears to be reaching a consensus, and this DRN case would likely not make the consensus arrive more quickly, nor is DRN a reasonable substitute for ongoing discussions at the article talk page. Collect ( talk) 13:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I have added content to our DRN guideline that were not previously there, that seem to be appropriate (the bolded parts are the new additions):
*If you have had past dealings (either positive or negative) with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in the dispute which would give the appearance of bias, do not act as a volunteer on that dispute or open or close the dispute. If an editor objects to your involvement in a case, you should withdraw from the case or initiate a discussion on the DRN talk page so the community can decide if a new volunteer should step in.
As always, feel free to revert if anyone disagrees or it is felt that a discussion should begin first.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 19:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Per a prior discussion and consensus I've requested a change to the filing form. The request can be seen here. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Rather than point fingers and lay blame, let's take a fresh approach and define requirements for what the DRN bot should do. Frankly there are editors who are of the viewpoint "I said I wanted this three weeks ago when I told you about it yesterday, why isn't it implemented yet?" or "I think this is a good idea but I have no consensus discussion to back it up, so just make it happen". That certain volunteers have driven away one of the most prolific bot operators with constant haranging is a clear indicator that DRN does not have it's ducks in a row. Start by defining what the process should be, then define how the templates should be used, then define how the bot operates. I note from a quick review that there will need to be a handoff of the DRN case database so that we can continue forward. So can we agree to put down the clubs and work twords defining what the DRN process should be? Hasteur ( talk) 14:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I would also add that simple is good. I think the prior bot tried to get fancy and had too many features and too many labels for case status. Obviously we did not have a good system of communication with the bot manager because many DRN volunteers were very frustrated with the system and yet the way in which their feedback was communicated to the bot operator resulted in frustration from that end too. One idea is to have 3-4 experienced DRN volunteers set up a subcommittee and work with a new bot operator to design a simple system that meets the needs of the DRN volunteers. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I've updated the template using this version of the board. Please give your thoughts, and if you agree, please comment so at the bot approval request above so that we can put pressure on BRFA to let us move forward with the simple summary table. Hasteur ( talk) 18:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Especially while the bot is down, but really any time, remember that it is always best to identify yourself as a volunteer when you first edit a case. If you don't do that it isn't clear to the participants or to other volunteers why it is that you're editing the case, whether you're coming in as a volunteer or as a missed disputant or as a new disputant or something else. Welcoming the participants in the dispute is a good idea, too, as it helps set the tone for the case. How you do it is up to you, but I usually start my first edit with: "Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer here..." Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
{{
DR case status}}
template if it would have potentially qualified for a new status. Take a look at
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DRN clerk bot to see the effort that is being made to get the automated summaries put back in place.
Hasteur (
talk) 13:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Although the speedy close reason that ANI or AE already has jurisdiction at time of filing is clear enough, but the text does not say anything about what happens if the ANI/AE/etc is filed after the DRN case is already opened. Does venue auto-transfer at that point and if so can we say something that says so? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
This thread relates to this revert. I had tried to add the struck out text to the "no prior discussion" reason for speedy close
Disclaimer, I'm an involved party in a current case in which this (in my opinion) is a factor. But I waive any claim of reliance on the outcome of this discussion in that case because I think it is still a good idea for other cases in the future.
The reverting ed's edit summary asserts this is a controversial issue, so let's take a quick reading..... NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The "no extensive discussion" rule (MedCom has the same rule; at 3O it's "no thorough discussion") exists to help preserve the collaborative wiki nature of Wikipedia and to say to editors, in effect, "If you have disagreements with other editors you are expected to collaborate on working them out. If you do not desire to do that, then your dispute will remain unresolved (see WP:CONS#No consensus). Dispute resolution cannot be used as a court to adjudge your disagreement and can be used to facilitate your discussions only after you have shown a more-than-just-a-gesture effort to work them out yourself." I have closed discussions which had walls of text from both sides on the article talk page because once you eliminated all the conduct accusations and name-calling and bias, POV, and COI allegations there was little or nothing left about the content matter in dispute. I do not think that I would close one for this reason because of GishGalloping or forum-like discussion or other wall of text behavior. So I guess that I would vote C-tending-to-A because there are mere words — conduct (and related administrative matters) — which I would disregard but if there is an extensive back-and-forth discussion over anything else I probably wouldn't invoke inadequate discussion. (Just in passing: I would probably have closed this particular case as being primarily a conduct matter based on the filing editor's "How do you think we can help?" statement since he was complaining about editor bias which is a conduct matter, not a content matter. But except in cases where another volunteer — typically an very inexperienced volunteer — has made a clear and absolute error in opening a case, I will not second-guess another editor's decision to take or open a case.) Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
If there is consensus that GishGallop/forum threads don't open the door to DRN then there are various ways to address that. I'm not wedded to my approach but until someone offers another suggestion I think we should add this to the project page. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
It's been archived twice by the bot and is still looking for resolution. It's over a week and a half old dispute. Tutelary ( talk) 16:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I've made a lot of copy edits, updates and upgrades to the DRN volunteer page. Please look it over and tweak as needed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
DRN case status}}
) and nothing else. Once we have approval for that, I think defining what each of the statuses means and when it's appropriate for the case to have the status.
Hasteur (
talk) 20:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I've listed myself as acting coordinator in lieu of Steven Zhang's early departure from the role.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Steve.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about all the fuss regarding my term as coordinator - real life got in the way (mostly University exams - but I'm back, and ready to begin my term. I would however like someone else in the background to "guide" me on what to do for the first few days. I've had a look at the current status of the cases we're currently hearing, and they're either closed or being dealt with. -- The Historian ( talk) 13:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Since The Historian has only made one edit in the past 7 months, has not responded to a ping from four days ago, and we are already two weeks into the scheduled coordination period, I have re-listed myself, and re-assumed the role of DRN volunteer coordinator. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
This is very off-the-cuff...having just worked through my first DRN case (or at least the first that I couldn't close immediately on procedural grounds), I'm wondering whether DRN cases should require a minimum of three involved parties, with two-party cases being referred to the third-opinion noticeboard. In my experience 3O is generally a more expeditious process for two-party disputes, and it might free up some resources here to focus on more involved cases.
Anyway, just a thought. DonIago ( talk) 03:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Is DRN only for the article space? Or can it be used for wiki guidelines, the MOS, template docs and so on? The guide doesn't appear to say anything either way. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 09:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Thoughts? Comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the replacement of the old the-more-the-merrier strategy reflects current and best practices here at DRN. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)If you would like to contribute to a case that already has a volunteer moderator, feel free to add your insights regarding the content under discussion. Identify yourself as a volunteer and state that you are merely contributing as a regular
aneditor, not as a volunteer. If you wish to assist in leading the mediation process, it may be best to contact the DRN volunteer moderator on their talk page and express your desire to help. This is a way of showing respect for the currentvolunteermoderator and avoiding an interruption of the resolution strategy already underway. If you feel that a case is not being handled or moderated properly by another DRN volunteer then bring you concerns to the moderator's talk page or to the DRN talk page for community discussion. If you are moderating a case but cannot continue for some reason, post a notice in the case's Discussion section and on the DRN talk page asking for another volunteer to take over the discussion you have started.
OK, good comments and feedback. Combining suggestions from NewsGuy and T-man I propose this version below:
Is this OK?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The participants at this DRN case are eagerly awaiting a moderator. I don't feel comfortable taking the case as I have editing experience with two of the four participants (albeit on unrelated topics). So it might be best for someone else to step in.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
As fate would have it the two main parties have said they are working things out on the talk page and have requested the case be closed. Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
This is not a productive discussion. MrScorch has taken the case. Others may participate as they wish. Let's start over and focus on article content not each other. --Keithbob 17:40 June 23, 2014
|
---|
So my perspective mediator's first two edit summaries were "Directing a specific warning at Atlantictire for their behavior" and "Giving my 2 bits again because recipient appears to be in a IDHT coma." Yes, I am at my wit's end and keeping my cool is becoming difficult. That's why I'm here. I comment at AN/I now, because I'd like admins to get better at taking the time to learn about content and the context of a dispute... not just look for obvious violations of WP:CIVIL made by incredibly frustrated people. Let's not get touchy right off the bat because someone is saying, woah woah, it's way too soon for you to know the context and yes, in fact, I am angry and that's why I'm here. I'm here instead of edit warring. I'm not encouraged by Hasteur's introduction. Somebody else... someone who's willing to reserve judgement and patiently look over sources.-- Atlantictire ( talk) 14:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
After seeing the ordeal avove, I retracted this statement. I think it would be wise for Hasteur to sit this case out, but I won't resist him if he would like to help out. MrScorch6200 ( talk | ctrb) 20:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
|
-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Just as Keithbob said above: Enough. I believe progress can still be made here if everyone will just stop grinding these axes and let MrScorch6200 do his job. If the listing party wishes to withdraw, that is his prerogative and he may do so by saying so on the main page, but nothing is being accomplished by this discussion. —
TransporterMan (
TALK) 15:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC) (as frequent DRN volunteer)
|
---|
*cough* Over 2/3 of this diff is nothing but attacks on the opponent in the dispute. Since the warning has already been made would Keithbob or MrScorch6200 like to forcably disemvowel the post to remind a certain editor what behavior will and will not be tolerated? Hasteur ( talk) 00:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
@Transporterman regarding whether I want to continue. Hasteur needs to stay out. I think I understand now where his animosity is coming from. From now on this is not his affair. Not in the thread. Not on the talk page.-- Atlantictire ( talk) 16:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC) |
Looks like I missed a lot during the night...
MrScorch6200 (
talk |
ctrb) 17:28, 25 June 2014 (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.
I posted a more lengthy description on a page that I thought was for reporting about editors who intimate and harass other editors, on the administrative noticeboard, but was redirected here.
Basically, I am concerned regarding the deterioration in communications toward me by editor User:Montanabw, which have been over the top, intimidating, harassing, and ugly, as can be observed here: /info/en/?search=Talk:Standardbred. I would have expected the communications from an 8-year veteran on Wikipedia to be much better than what I've experienced. As a result, I will never again edit the article, Standardbred, and I have been left very disillusioned and disappointed that such conduct is acceptable on Wikipedia. I've attempted to discuss it on the editor's talk page and on the article's talk page, with a continued worsening of communications by this editor; see her comments on my talk page here: /info/en/?search=User_talk:Daniellagreen. She has threatened to report me for harassment simply for posting comments on her talk page, and to me, has evidenced communications to me that are harassing and unnecessary. Rather than my comments be a "waste" of her time, as she has stated, one could be open to compromise and a different viewpoint regarding this situation. Daniellagreen ( talk) 01:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I've been working on expanding WP:DRR. It's a graphic overview of all the dispute resolution venues available for both content and conduct. I think it's a valuable tool when counseling DRN participants about their potential next steps. The WP:DR page has great information but it can be a little overwhelming especially for new or intermediate level users. So I'm letting folks know about this other, more visual, overview of options. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I made this template so coordinators can show how proud they are of providing DRN with a smooth experience by volunteering to be coordinator. MrScorch6200 ( talk | ctrb) 23:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
This user is or has been coordinator of the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. |
Hello. Over the past couple of weeks I have run into what I can only describe as some kind of a group of Germany page editors who are repeatedly removing and reverting legitimate edits to the Germany page. These edits, I feel, follow the standard practices of Wiki editing, eg. removing POV. I have no idea how to deal with these editors who seem to have nothing less than a fanatical zeal to keep the Wiemar and Nazi section of the article exactly as it was before. Do you have any advice on what should be done in this type of situation. It seems more than apparent that using the talk page is useless (we've been having a conversation there for 2 weeks now without anything being resolved) and these editors have created so many new sections that it's absolutely impossible to have a discussion. Their constant argument is that: "This is an FA article and has been for a long time therefore it should always remain unchanged" no matter how obvious the omission of facts may be. Any help or advice you can give would be greatly appreciated, another editor, an administrator User:John has mentioned that article would no longer qualify as an FA article, would downgrading the article's ranking change anything or simply result in more unstoppable blocking by these users? Monopoly31121993 ( talk) 22:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Moderator needed for the Ghana case. I have a history with one of the participants and must recuse. If someone else could step in that would be great. Thanks! :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:28, 28 June 2014 (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.
Hi, I'm trying to develop a project to improve Wikipedia's Siduri page with custom community created multimedia and programs. This approach, if successful, could be used on other pages and hopefully make Wikipedia a more effective method for transmitting information to a visitor. An administrator deleted everything, and now I am unsure what to do and what the correct Wikipedia rules and regulations are. Are we not allowed to use our user pages to develop projects aimed at improving Wikipedia? It would be ironic, and somewhat sad, if a project aimed at improving Wikipedia was not welcome on Wikipedia. Siduri-Project ( talk) 17:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Glad it was resolved, but wrong place for this discussion
|
---|
This is the second time Denisona has randomly deleted strictly accurate and duly sourced material from an article. This time, I added it back with the proper attribution and a statement that some authorities (to wit, Denisona) seem to disagree. I see that I am FAR FROM the only person who has had issues with this person, for whom Denisova is a more appropriate moniker, if you get the pun . . . What to do? I am tired of obnoxious three-day bans and such because I disagree with editors who take it upon themselves to be capricious, subjective, and, above all, asinine. 50.128.184.140 ( talk) 15:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
|
I don't really have the time to work on it right now (though I could maybe look into it next week), but this section should really be expanded and clarified; as-is it doesn't actually detail everything that should be done when closing a case for inappropriateness. If nothing else, bolding the templates that should be added in the example might be helpful. Cheers! DonIago ( talk) 12:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I closed Talk:Abiogenesis as a violation of CANVASS, but the listing editor reverted my closure. I've re–closed it, but would invite any other regular volunteer here to examine my closure and reopen the case if they feel that my closure was inappropriate. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Unless you can call in the correct peopleWOAH THERE! You need to put that thought out of your head right now. That's canvassing and one of the fastest ways to your viewpoint being labeled as disruptive editing and being put in the padded room. Do we ask literature major graduates about theroritical physics? Why shouldn't the members of the science based wikiprojects be invited to participate in the RFC? Hasteur ( talk) 13:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
My name's Chaz, I'm the one who filed the DRN in the first place. My discussion is the result of several attempts to improve an article on Wikipedia, only to have facts, evidence (or lack thereof), and logic ignored. You can see exactly what I did and Reallyfat B. suggesting I open a DRN does not violate any sort of technicality in any way, since I did not even know what a DRN was until a few days ago. Had I known the process I would have made it myself without his suggestion. So to close my discussion based only on the fact that the DRN was premeditated by someone other than myself is unfair to me, as I spent an hour of my time creating it. Had I known that this process existed, I would have wrote up the same exact discussion, regardless of who told me about the DRN process. I put my time and effort into this thing, it needs to be heard out in full. Shandck ( talk) 20:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)