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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 33 |
I have updated the co-ordinator list as it was pretty outdated and had not seen updates for months. Just a note that I moved the past dates in the current/future coordinator slots to the prior coordinator slots and created 2 blank slots open for volunteers. Yashovardhan ( talk) 16:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand how you let someone accuse me (and you, by extension) of believing in a conspiracy theory (a personal attack), but warn me for noting that there's no hope for compromise with them due to their behavior. Terrorist96 ( talk) 03:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Do not forget to remove the {{
DNAU}} template while closing cases or they won't be auto archived until 14 days from the start date.
@
Winged Blades of Godric and
ProgrammingGeek: - You both forgot to remove the template from your last few closures.
Yashovardhan (
talk) 07:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
A couple of important announcements:
I just closed another request that had not been discussed on the talk page. I think that the number of requests that have not been discussed on a talk page, but where the filer elects to say that it has been discussed, just illustrates that having a bot screen out incorrect filings won't help, and that the only correction for human mistakes, such as premature filing, is a human. Comments? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Please look at WP:DRN/VA and comment on its talk page. Your suggestions are requested and welcome. Pinging all volunteers @ Atsme, Being.human, DoctorJoeE, Doniago, Dr. Kadzi, Eurodyne, Hasteur, KDS4444, Kostas20142, Mark Miller, Mr. Guye, ProgrammingGeek, Robert McClenon, TerraCodes, TheDragonFire, TransporterMan, and Winged Blades of Godric: for comments. Yashovardhan ( talk) 13:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
As you all might already know, the template {{ Calm}} is used on talk pages where discussion tends to be heated and editors at such pages might want to use Dispute Resolution to resolve such disputes. I proposed advertising about Dispute Resolution on the template itself. My proposal can be seen here. Please comment there itself and we can request an edit if a consensus is reached. Yashovardhan ( talk) 16:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Important note Per discussion on Template talk with ProgrammingGeek, a change was made in the template. Volunteers might want to prepare themselves for an increase in new (possibly premature) filings. Volunteers are expected to close premature cases only after proper analysis and with a useful closing statement which helps editors take the right next step. @ ProgrammingGeek: Your last close was good and to the point. Well done! Yashovardhan ( talk) 19:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
In February of 2016 the Wikimedia foundation started sending information to all of the websites we link to that allow the owner of the website (or someone who hacks the website, or law enforcement with a search warrant / subpoena) to figure out what Wikipedia page the user was reading when they clicked on the external link.
The WMF is not bound by Wikipedia RfCs, but we can use an advisory-only RfC to decide what information, if any, we want to send to websites we link to and then put in a request to the WMF. I have posted such an advisory-only RfC, which may be found here:
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy
Please comment so that we can determine the consensus of the Wikipedia community on this matter. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Here are a few comments on filings and topics that volunteers do not understand. A volunteer just closed a case in which there had been no proper discussion, and in which they didn’t understand what the filing was about. We sometimes get filings in which it is hard, especially for someone with no prior knowledge, to understand what the case is about. In general, it should be the responsibility of the disputing editors to explain what the dispute is about. The volunteer shouldn’t have to know. The volunteer may tell the editors to provide the background information.
In this specific case, it turns out that the issue that had not been adequately discussed before being filed here had to do with a particular translation of the Bible, that is, Christian Scripture. Which translation of the Bible to use has long been a contentious issue among Christians. It wasn’t clear from the filing that that was the issue. It was only apparent after some research, and only to a Christian.
So a question is: Can a volunteer accept a case where they know nothing about the subject matter? For instance, can a non-Christian moderate a case about a translation of the Bible? The answer is yes. The moderator should instruct the editors to explain what the issue is, even though, or because, that requires work by the participants, especially if the issue is obscure, like a theological distinction, or quantum mechanics, or a remote part of the Earth. You, a volunteer, don’t need to understand the issues in advance. The editors need to explain them to you. After all, they also need to have the article explain the subject to readers who came to Wikipedia because they are looking for knowledge that they don’t already have.
I didn’t moderate a dispute about Four Noble Truths, not because I am not a Buddhist (which I am not), but because of previous involvement with the parties. The article on Four Noble Truths should explain them to a non-Buddhist reader; after all, a Buddhist reader already knows about that basic Buddhist belief.
So you don’t need prior knowledge of the subject to moderate a dispute. Insist that the editors explain it. (And if there has been no prior discussion, the case isn't ready for this noticeboard.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Now, if you want to look at a Christian religious topic that really is difficult to understand, look up filioque. The issue of whether to use this word (or its equivalent in another language) has divided Christians for a thousand years, but even most Christians don't understand what it is. Fortunately, it isn't at DRN. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Is a volunteer available for moderating the dispute at Talk:Malayalam#Debates on_the_origins_of_Malayalam_-_June_2017? New volunteers who have experience in other dispute resolution processes are also encouraged to volunteer here. Yashovardhan ( talk) 11:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
There have been a few cases closed recently where I agree that the case should have been closed for inadequate discussion. However, I would just like to suggest two comments about what can be done in specific cases where there has been inadequate or no prior discussion. While we would always prefer to see a dispute discussed constructively, we should also give the best possible advice about what to do when discussion is not working or not happening. First, today a case was closed in which it appears that an IP address (unregistered editor) was making or reverting edits and was not discussing. The best advice in that case is for the registered editor to request semi-protection at Requests for Page Protection. Administrators will almost always grant short semi-protection when an IP is not discussing their edits. Occasionally that will get the IP to discuss on the talk page. Unfortunately, usually it won't, in that most disruptive IP editors simply are disruptive IP editors, and will either go away or wait for the semi-protection to expire. If necessary, the registered editor can request semi-protection again. It is the IP editor's loss that they aren't contributing anything. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Second, I would advise volunteers, in closing cases in areas that are subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions, that, although taking a dispute to any conduct forum, such as WP:ANI, is always a last resort, it is "less futile" to take the case to Arbitration Enforcement than to take it to WP:ANI or WP:ANEW. In my opinion, WP:ANI deals reasonably well with vandals, trolls, flamers, and other types of editors who are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. In my opinion, it does not do well at dealing with POV-pushers or stubborn editors, at least unless the POV-pusher or stubborn editor engages in personal attacks. Arbitration Enforcement often deals relatively quickly with such editors, often by giving the editor a unilateral topic ban. In any case, my advice is to recommend Arbitration Enforcement as a last resort when it is available. It is only a last resort, but it is a better last resort than either WP:ANI or WP:ANEW. (If you don't know if a dispute area is covered by Arbitration Enforcement, just ask, but a volunteer may have mentioned it. Some of the areas that are covered by Arbitration Enforcement are subject to battleground editing because they have been real battlegrounds historically, such as the Balkans, Israel and Palestine, India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, and Eastern Europe. Arbitration Enforcement prevents refighting World War One or the Arab-Israeli wars. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I suggest that these options be kept in mind when giving advice on what to do with disputes where discussion is failing. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Why did a serious edit on OnePlus ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=OnePlus&action=history) get reverted without even providing any reason? The revert was done by username Emir of Wikipedia.
We have a few cases that either need moderators or need an experienced volunteer to decide that they should be closed (e.g., as failed, or due to lack of response). Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
All volunteers do a lot of hard work already and this might sound more work but it's important to save time here. When checking whether all parties have been informed or not, also check if the account actually exists. If not, check the discussion and try and correct the username if possible. Make the changes at the list of participants, the section headers and then you might wanna inform them about the thread as well. This saves a lot of time as you don't need to wait for the filing editor or any other concerned party to do the same. The mistake is usually spelling or copying the signature as the username. Just don't change it to any valid username unless they've actually discussed the matter. Remember that edit summaries are not counted as discussion. This is also a reminder to all the filing parties to make sure they use the correct username. Thank you Winged Blades of Godric for monitoring these issues., Yashovardhan ( talk) 18:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
No one has signed up to take up the coordination of DRN for the term August 2017 - September 2017. Interested volunteers must be active at least during this month and list themselves at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Co-ordinator in the respective section. Changeover to happen on the 1st of August. Yashovardhan ( talk) 09:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Is a volunteer willing to moderate the discussion at Talk:2017 Finsbury_Park_attack#Back_to_the_original_question_again?. It appears that most of the parties concerned have filed a summary and they are willing for moderated discussion. Yashovardhan ( talk) 11:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Should a comment be added to the banner at the top of the page to please avoid editing the article in question after filing a case and while waiting to see whether it is accepted? Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
In the case in point, to be sure, it seems that the article was reworked by an editor who was not requesting dispute resolution, and this just left things not in their original state. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I would instead propose a banner that could be added to a page to indicate that there is currently a discussion here and that editors may wish to review said discussion before editing the page in question. DonIago ( talk) 14:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
It occurs to me that, in closing cases that are not ready for moderated discussion, volunteers should consider whether the requesting editor is very new and would benefit from some instruction as to the ways of Wikipedia. In particular, I tried to be informative in closing the request about BioArt. (Well, I made it into a request about BioArt, which is what was intended. It wasn't properly formatted at first.) Maybe we, as volunteers, should consider whether we need to try to explain to new editors what talk pages are for. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I have added it on the volunteer page here. Have a look and feel free to edit it as necessary. Yashovardhan ( talk) 06:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
A reminder. If any volunteer notices that a complaint has been filed at WP:ANI concerning disruptive editing of an article that is the subject of a dispute here, please close the dispute here. This noticeboard does not handle a dispute that is also pending in another content forum or in any conduct forum. This of course also applies if a case is filed at WP:AN, WP:ANEW, WP:AE, or WP:AIV. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I had to close a case as a conduct issue in which the filing party stated that they were acting on behalf of the subject organization. By the way, there is no need to take a case to the conflict of interest noticeboard if the conflict is clearly stated. Yuck. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello. You are invited to comment on this RfC, which seeks to reform certain aspects of Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. Biblio ( talk) 15:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Maybe I should ask this question at a more frequently watched talk page. A common issue at DRN is that the filing editor says that an issue is not about one particular article but a dispute between two editors across multiple articles. Often it is worded so that it could easily be taken to be a conduct dispute, a complaint against the other editor. However, I generally don’t want to refer an editor to a conduct forum when there are content aspects that can be resolved (and sometimes resolving the content issue causes the conduct to be ameliorated). (Anyway, WP:ANI very seldom accomplishes anything except against trolls.) Also, sometimes, when the problem is that the filing editor is making multiple unsourced edits (or other questionable edits) to multiple articles, and another editor is following them. In that case, the problem may be described as the second editor hounding the first editor, but they really have found it necessary to clean up behind them.
Sometimes, if the issue has to do with a group of related articles, there may be an appropriate WikiProject. Sometimes there isn’t.
Occasionally it is almost impossible, even after research, to figure out what the problem is.
Do other volunteers have comments? Do I need to go to a more popular project talk page? Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I come here based on advice on the moderator's talk page. This case was opened by a neutral editor, who was trying to help. When I was notified of the case I summarised the issues very concisely, as requested. I then waited for days for the process to continue. I was busy on the weekend with family issues and I didn’t get back to Wikipedia until Monday morning. I then discovered that the moderator had resumed the process on the weekend, and had already closed the case, without there having been any actual discussion. This issue has been thrashed out exhaustively at the article talk page, but has gridlocked on the interpretation of WP:NPOV. This DRN process could have helped, but now the problem is continuing. Is there anything that can be done? Wdford ( talk) 21:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Please remember to use the correct format (i.e.{{
User|example}}
instead of {{
user|example}}
) when indicating members of the volunteer resolvers (
WP:DRVOLUNTEERS). 2 users had the latter template recently causing them to not show up in the "Last Volunteer edit" column.
Hasteur (
talk) 17:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
If you are a volunteer and choose to mediate or moderate a dispute (1) thank you (2) please set the status from New to Open. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
There have been some recent concerns raised about the closing of threads when participating editors have not responded within 48 hours. I would like the comments of other volunteers and experienced editors. I will comment that this noticeboard is intended for the resolution of relatively simple disputes quickly, and that allowing breaks from participation will extend the time for resolution of disputes. I don't think that it is fair to volunteers to expect that volunteers will ping the editors on their talk pages; the watchlist capability exists precisely in order to enable editors to know when pages of concern have been updated. Do we need to update the general instructions for this noticeboard to remind participants more clearly of the obligation to watchlist this noticeboard and respond promptly? Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Please do not subst the DRN archive template. It apparently sometimes does weird things. Today it hid a case. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
A DRN request about PFC Cherno More Varna was closed as premature. While it is true that the discussion at the article's talk page is not recent, there has been extensive discussion at bg wiki talk page, including a third opinion by a bg wiki user/admin. The last comment there is from 29 July 2017. See also the archived discussion at WT:FOOTY which is also recent. Since all users involved are Bulgarian and article is basically a translation of bg:ПФК Черно море (Варна), I believe that we have already discussed this issue at length and haven't reached consensus.
Do we have to repeat the same discussion in English before resorting to DRN or the one at WT:FOOTY (in English) can serve as basis for a dispute resolution attempt via DRN? Yavorescu ( talk) 15:39, 1 August 2017 (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.
Has anyone else noticed that the {{pagelinks}} is working a little differently than it previously did, at least when the original page being referenced is an article talk page? Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
There have been issues raised at this noticeboard recently which the filing party has said involve multiple articles. I would appreciate comments from other volunteers about how to deal with such disputes. First, these disputes have often been worded as disputes about an editor, as conduct disputes. However, we have found that often resolving a content issue can ameliorate any conduct concerns. The real concern that I have with multi-article disputes is that they really have to be about content. My thought is that we should be willing to accept such disputes, subject to the usual rules (be civil and concise, comment on content, not contributors) if the content dispute has been discussed at length on an appropriate WikiProject talk page. (If there isn't an appropriate WikiProject, the discussion may have been too disconnected, or the issue may be disconnected). Comments? Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
At least three disputes that were 'In progress' were moved today (Aug 6) to the archive. And at least one of them - Talk:Phys.org#Edits today - was waiting for a response from the moderator. Was it intentional or a bug? And how the disputes should proceed now? Naesco ( talk) 17:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Just another brief word about this. DRN cases are designed to be completed quickly and therefore have a Do Not Archive date of only 14 days after listing. Once that date has been reached, the case will be archived if any 24 hour period passes without the case being edited. That's designed to keep cases moving. If you're a volunteer you should feel free to extend the DNA date, especially if the case gets a late start after initially being listed, and if the case typically has gaps of a day or two between responses. But cases should show continuous progress and should not be kept alive "just in case" someone eventually wants to make a response or continue the case. If the volunteer or a participant asks for a delay of a specific length — "I'll be out of town for 10 days" — that can also be a good reason to extend the DNA date if it's okay with everyone else. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 20:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
On the one hand, I was about to close the request concerning the Google memo, because there is a Request for Comments in progress, and an RFC takes precedence over other forms of dispute resolution, but another volunteer closed it. Thank you. On the other hand, I think that this was a case where the filing editor didn't understand how an RFC works. He said that the discussion was petering out. I think that he, in good faith, misunderstood, and thought that an RFC is meant to promote continuing discussion. It is meant to get comments, and discussion is optional. I have tried to explain to him. Sometimes we need to explain to an editor why we are closing a thread. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Dear all,
Following the DRN discussion here are some generally reliable secondary sources, all of them well-established news outlets that discuss IACA’s history and what the organization does. I hope they can be used to help build a more informative WP article about IACA.
Die Zeit (a leading German newspaper): http://www.zeit.de/2013/06/Antikorruptionsakademie-Laxenburg-Oesterreich (in German)
China Daily newspaper: http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2015-03/27/content_19923209.htm
Thomson Reuters Regulatory Intelligence (introductory part before the paywall): http://www.complinet.com/global/news/news/article.html?ref=187256&bulletin=spotlight®ion=_10170
These sources mention the following:
IACA is both an intergovernmental (international) organization and educational institution (China Daily).
IACA was set up in 2011 (China Daily), i.e. it was formally established as an international organization in that year. But IACA was launched in 2010, as the Wikipedia article currently states and as confirmed by the reference in Die Zeit to IACA’s inaugural conference in 2010 (see paragraph 6).
The China Daily article mentions three of IACA’s four main founding partners - the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the European Commission's Anti-Fraud Office, and the Austrian government (it should also mention Interpol too, as the UNODC press release does).
IACA offers academic degree programmes and standard and bespoke training (Thomson Reuters), including the Master in Anti-Corruption Studies (Die Zeit, paragraph 2).
IACA’s Dean and Executive Secretary is Martin Kreutner.
Sorry for not providing these sooner - was away for 2 weeks.
Best, Richard.eames ( talk) 13:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
...and let me again declare my COI regarding this page - I'm IACA's Head of Communications. Richard.eames ( talk) 13:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi - here are some additional reliable secondary sources on which further content can be derived for the article about IACA:
FCPA Blog (widely read in the anti-corruption and compliance community): http://www.fcpablog.com/blog/2015/2/25/whoa-enforcement-and-compliance-are-breaking-out-all-over.html -please note that this article was written by the FCPA Blog's own Publisher and Editor, not by a lecturer on IACA's programmes
Content here: IACA specializes in training mid-career anti-corruption professionals. It runs short and mid-length training courses and programmes. In 2012 it launched a two-year Master in Anti-Corruption Studies programme.
Radio France Internationale: http://www.rfi.fr/emission/20170517-bulgarie-retraites-plus-pauvres -click on the play button in the top right corner of the main photo, and the IACA story starts at 04:36
Content here: IACA has trained professionals in approx. 150 countries to date.
Best, Richard.eames ( talk) 10:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Have pasted these sources/content into the IACA article talk page. Richard.eames ( talk) 07:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
We need volunteer moderators for three cases. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I have a question about how to conduct dispute resolution at this noticeboard. I will be asking for advice from User:TransporterMan, the dispute resolution coordinator, and at Village Pump (miscellaneous). The question is what dispute resolution volunteers should do when one of the key editors, especially the filing party, is clearly having so much difficulty with English that it is hard to understand exactly what the issues are.
Editors who have limited ability in English are common, and normally are not a problem. If they create articles that have problems with grammar, the articles can be tagged as needing copy-edit or can be copy-edited. If it is possible to know what is being said, one can normally improve the article. If an article is so badly garbled that it is difficult to know what the subject, if it is very short, it can be tagged as A1. A longer article that is so garbled that it is not possible to know what it is about to improve it can be tagged as A7 if it appears to be about one of the kinds of things for which A7 applies, or otherwise can be PRODed. Also, sometimes it is appropriate to suggest politely to an editor that Wikipedia would benefit more if they would edit the Wikipedia in their first language. (The English Wikipedia has more than five million articles. Other Wikipedias have fewer. In a crude quantitative sense, they have greater need.)
However, if an editor is one of the principal editors in a content dispute and has difficulty in explaining what they want, what do we do? This has happened from time to time, and I don’t know of a right answer. The default answer seems to be that they are ignored. If they have a poorly stated complaint, they don’t get it resolved. If they make contentious edits, presumably to try to add information or to change the point of view, the edits can be reverted, but just reverting edits is less than ideal. Are there any ideas? Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Godric: Is this discussion still in progress, and is progress being made? It has been going on much longer than most disputes here. If it is still making progress, good. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I would like to add something to our current DRN header to help assist editors that request DRN mediation or participate in a DRN discussion. It might also be of help to add it to the actual filing form in some manner to remind editors of how Wikipedia discussions are supposed to work and that DRN adheres to these guidelines;
There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Pay particular attention to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which applies to talk pages as well as to articles: "Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." [1]
References
I think that this will, hopefully, make some things more clear to even more experienced content editors that might have less experience with talk page discussions. The addition of the BLP policy may actually be even more essential to keep editors in check about making claims about living people, perhaps with the additional DRN comment that; "Editors are living persons, some use their actual names. BLP policy may apply to claims made by an editor against another editor as well as other pertinent policies regarding DOXing". Of course, we wouldn't use the reference.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 04:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I made the bold edit to the header as follows;
Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. "Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.
I figured it best to keep it as simple as possible but still contain the most information.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 06:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
What was the BLP issue? I didn't see it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I saw a warning from a volunteer moderator that something might be a BLP violation. I have not been following the BOM dispute carefully, but on looking at it I didn't see anything that resembled a BLP violation. Was there a specific allegation about a contemporary scholar? What was so serious that it required a warning about requesting sanctions? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Is any other volunteer willing to take over the John McCain dispute? It appears that one of the editors may not be satisfied with my moderation, or perhaps that I am not maintaining proper neutrality. Can we have a different moderator? Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Will another volunteer please take a look at the case and advise me as to whether I am more or less right (and the fact that there had been a stable version for a long time does not change the fact that there is now a content issue) or whether I may be mistaken, and also at whether another volunteer should take over? Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Collapse misplaced and thus off-topic post and response, now filed on the main page. —
TransporterMan (
TALK) 17:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
|
---|
Dear Wiki admin - Recent release and update of iOS 11 for iPhone 6, 6s, and 7 have generated a lot of issues for iPhone users and widely reported in news media including BBC UK, The Telegraph, The Independent, The Australian, Business Insider, etc. A paragraph describing the issues reported and citations to sources were provided by me earlier on. Editor Guy Harris reviewed, edited and approved the writeup. But, Darius robin has repeatedly removed the whole section. His action contributes to censorship, and taking sides with APPLE. Wikipedia is for the public and Wikipedia does not take sides on any companies. One would expect his improvement on the article, not total censorship. As such, I would like to request help from Wiki admin to look at this case and allow the public information pertaining to iOS 11 issues to be presented in iOS 11 wikipedia page and block further censorship from editor Darius Robin Thank you all. Fellow007 ( talk) 16:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
|
DRN is, by its nature, a welcoming place for editors who want to try to resolve content disputes in good faith. However, I had to warn one editor that they were abusing DRN. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I will be making proposals for DRN reform to address this issue (and others) soon.
Nihlus 03:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
|
---|
I'm asking that someone step in as the DRN coordinator as the one we currently have (
Kostas20142) has barely participated in the process and was only active in disputes
for one week in July/August. I have volunteered as I'm supposed to start on December 1 but am not opposed to someone else (who is actually active) filling in for the rest of the month. The current coordinator didn't even contribute in their first month, and seemingly used this role to
gain additional user rights in order to bolster is
attempted RfA. I gave him the opportunity to pass it along to someone else, but he
declined that offer, showing poor judgment in the process. I also think it would be prudent to confirm those who wish to fulfill the role, by having active DRN volunteers participate in a discussion on each person wanting to volunteer for DRN coordinator, just so that this doesn't happen again.
Nihlus 18:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I generally didn't take cases during my stints as coordinator, but I did try to keep up with the items listed at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Coordinator#Tasks. However, even then, it sometimes happened that new enthusiastic volunteers would sometimes come in and frequently get to those tasks before I could get around to them (eh, Robert? ) and when that happened I would sometimes slack off and let them handle it. So long as someone is generally keeping up with them at least every day or two, I generally think we're okay. If Kostas says that he's willing to do that, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for the rest of his current term. Frankly — and I'm not commenting on whether or not Kostas is too inexperienced by saying this and, indeed, I express no opinion on that issue — so long as someone is keeping up with the coordinator's duties, I think the bigger problem that we've encountered here is inexperienced volunteers who take cases without having any idea of how to handle them properly than administrative tasks going undone. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Coordinator DiscussionsI would like to suggest that future discussions of who is to be and who is the coordinator should be here, in general, and not on talk pages. Is there a reason why they shouldn't be here? Also, I will admit that maybe I should have been more aware of this in the past few days, but exactly what is the complaint anyway? Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I didn't want to pile on, but let's go through the list:
I hope this demonstrates my concern. Nihlus 01:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
This is incredibly unseemly. We're supposed to be the editors whose neutrality and consideration can resolve disputes. If we cannot resolve this kind of matter within ourselves without the kind of churning that is taking place here then we have totally failed in our mission. The fact that this minor matter has become as protracted and disruptive as it has makes me utterly lose confidence in either of you as having the discretion needed to participate in dispute resolution. Stop, just stop. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 23:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
|
Note: I've moved this to the bottom of the talk page, as per convention. ProgrammingGeek talktome 14:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I would like to seek help and I think the current DRN volunteer Nihlus should not be involved in this iOS 11 dispute coordination. Please read his writings and reply. I believe there is a conflict of interests here and he should not served as a dispute resolution coordinator. Fellow007 ( talk) 03:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
2p - I think Fellow007's issue with Nihlus is that Nihlus is giving guidance on the reliable sources guideline. While the role of the moderator is to facilitate discussion (not a third opinion), I don't think Nihlus was out of line at all when he said that the sources are not reliable, because to be frank, they're not. Fellow007, participation at DRN is voluntary (although a good idea). I think that Nihlus is giving good advice, but if you have a fundamental disagreement, then an RFC or third opinion may be the way to go. I do hope you can work this out. ProgrammingGeek talktome 14:07, 9 November 2017 (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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 33 |
I have updated the co-ordinator list as it was pretty outdated and had not seen updates for months. Just a note that I moved the past dates in the current/future coordinator slots to the prior coordinator slots and created 2 blank slots open for volunteers. Yashovardhan ( talk) 16:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand how you let someone accuse me (and you, by extension) of believing in a conspiracy theory (a personal attack), but warn me for noting that there's no hope for compromise with them due to their behavior. Terrorist96 ( talk) 03:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Do not forget to remove the {{
DNAU}} template while closing cases or they won't be auto archived until 14 days from the start date.
@
Winged Blades of Godric and
ProgrammingGeek: - You both forgot to remove the template from your last few closures.
Yashovardhan (
talk) 07:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
A couple of important announcements:
I just closed another request that had not been discussed on the talk page. I think that the number of requests that have not been discussed on a talk page, but where the filer elects to say that it has been discussed, just illustrates that having a bot screen out incorrect filings won't help, and that the only correction for human mistakes, such as premature filing, is a human. Comments? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Please look at WP:DRN/VA and comment on its talk page. Your suggestions are requested and welcome. Pinging all volunteers @ Atsme, Being.human, DoctorJoeE, Doniago, Dr. Kadzi, Eurodyne, Hasteur, KDS4444, Kostas20142, Mark Miller, Mr. Guye, ProgrammingGeek, Robert McClenon, TerraCodes, TheDragonFire, TransporterMan, and Winged Blades of Godric: for comments. Yashovardhan ( talk) 13:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
As you all might already know, the template {{ Calm}} is used on talk pages where discussion tends to be heated and editors at such pages might want to use Dispute Resolution to resolve such disputes. I proposed advertising about Dispute Resolution on the template itself. My proposal can be seen here. Please comment there itself and we can request an edit if a consensus is reached. Yashovardhan ( talk) 16:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Important note Per discussion on Template talk with ProgrammingGeek, a change was made in the template. Volunteers might want to prepare themselves for an increase in new (possibly premature) filings. Volunteers are expected to close premature cases only after proper analysis and with a useful closing statement which helps editors take the right next step. @ ProgrammingGeek: Your last close was good and to the point. Well done! Yashovardhan ( talk) 19:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
In February of 2016 the Wikimedia foundation started sending information to all of the websites we link to that allow the owner of the website (or someone who hacks the website, or law enforcement with a search warrant / subpoena) to figure out what Wikipedia page the user was reading when they clicked on the external link.
The WMF is not bound by Wikipedia RfCs, but we can use an advisory-only RfC to decide what information, if any, we want to send to websites we link to and then put in a request to the WMF. I have posted such an advisory-only RfC, which may be found here:
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy
Please comment so that we can determine the consensus of the Wikipedia community on this matter. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Here are a few comments on filings and topics that volunteers do not understand. A volunteer just closed a case in which there had been no proper discussion, and in which they didn’t understand what the filing was about. We sometimes get filings in which it is hard, especially for someone with no prior knowledge, to understand what the case is about. In general, it should be the responsibility of the disputing editors to explain what the dispute is about. The volunteer shouldn’t have to know. The volunteer may tell the editors to provide the background information.
In this specific case, it turns out that the issue that had not been adequately discussed before being filed here had to do with a particular translation of the Bible, that is, Christian Scripture. Which translation of the Bible to use has long been a contentious issue among Christians. It wasn’t clear from the filing that that was the issue. It was only apparent after some research, and only to a Christian.
So a question is: Can a volunteer accept a case where they know nothing about the subject matter? For instance, can a non-Christian moderate a case about a translation of the Bible? The answer is yes. The moderator should instruct the editors to explain what the issue is, even though, or because, that requires work by the participants, especially if the issue is obscure, like a theological distinction, or quantum mechanics, or a remote part of the Earth. You, a volunteer, don’t need to understand the issues in advance. The editors need to explain them to you. After all, they also need to have the article explain the subject to readers who came to Wikipedia because they are looking for knowledge that they don’t already have.
I didn’t moderate a dispute about Four Noble Truths, not because I am not a Buddhist (which I am not), but because of previous involvement with the parties. The article on Four Noble Truths should explain them to a non-Buddhist reader; after all, a Buddhist reader already knows about that basic Buddhist belief.
So you don’t need prior knowledge of the subject to moderate a dispute. Insist that the editors explain it. (And if there has been no prior discussion, the case isn't ready for this noticeboard.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Now, if you want to look at a Christian religious topic that really is difficult to understand, look up filioque. The issue of whether to use this word (or its equivalent in another language) has divided Christians for a thousand years, but even most Christians don't understand what it is. Fortunately, it isn't at DRN. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Is a volunteer available for moderating the dispute at Talk:Malayalam#Debates on_the_origins_of_Malayalam_-_June_2017? New volunteers who have experience in other dispute resolution processes are also encouraged to volunteer here. Yashovardhan ( talk) 11:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
There have been a few cases closed recently where I agree that the case should have been closed for inadequate discussion. However, I would just like to suggest two comments about what can be done in specific cases where there has been inadequate or no prior discussion. While we would always prefer to see a dispute discussed constructively, we should also give the best possible advice about what to do when discussion is not working or not happening. First, today a case was closed in which it appears that an IP address (unregistered editor) was making or reverting edits and was not discussing. The best advice in that case is for the registered editor to request semi-protection at Requests for Page Protection. Administrators will almost always grant short semi-protection when an IP is not discussing their edits. Occasionally that will get the IP to discuss on the talk page. Unfortunately, usually it won't, in that most disruptive IP editors simply are disruptive IP editors, and will either go away or wait for the semi-protection to expire. If necessary, the registered editor can request semi-protection again. It is the IP editor's loss that they aren't contributing anything. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Second, I would advise volunteers, in closing cases in areas that are subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions, that, although taking a dispute to any conduct forum, such as WP:ANI, is always a last resort, it is "less futile" to take the case to Arbitration Enforcement than to take it to WP:ANI or WP:ANEW. In my opinion, WP:ANI deals reasonably well with vandals, trolls, flamers, and other types of editors who are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. In my opinion, it does not do well at dealing with POV-pushers or stubborn editors, at least unless the POV-pusher or stubborn editor engages in personal attacks. Arbitration Enforcement often deals relatively quickly with such editors, often by giving the editor a unilateral topic ban. In any case, my advice is to recommend Arbitration Enforcement as a last resort when it is available. It is only a last resort, but it is a better last resort than either WP:ANI or WP:ANEW. (If you don't know if a dispute area is covered by Arbitration Enforcement, just ask, but a volunteer may have mentioned it. Some of the areas that are covered by Arbitration Enforcement are subject to battleground editing because they have been real battlegrounds historically, such as the Balkans, Israel and Palestine, India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, and Eastern Europe. Arbitration Enforcement prevents refighting World War One or the Arab-Israeli wars. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I suggest that these options be kept in mind when giving advice on what to do with disputes where discussion is failing. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Why did a serious edit on OnePlus ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=OnePlus&action=history) get reverted without even providing any reason? The revert was done by username Emir of Wikipedia.
We have a few cases that either need moderators or need an experienced volunteer to decide that they should be closed (e.g., as failed, or due to lack of response). Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
All volunteers do a lot of hard work already and this might sound more work but it's important to save time here. When checking whether all parties have been informed or not, also check if the account actually exists. If not, check the discussion and try and correct the username if possible. Make the changes at the list of participants, the section headers and then you might wanna inform them about the thread as well. This saves a lot of time as you don't need to wait for the filing editor or any other concerned party to do the same. The mistake is usually spelling or copying the signature as the username. Just don't change it to any valid username unless they've actually discussed the matter. Remember that edit summaries are not counted as discussion. This is also a reminder to all the filing parties to make sure they use the correct username. Thank you Winged Blades of Godric for monitoring these issues., Yashovardhan ( talk) 18:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
No one has signed up to take up the coordination of DRN for the term August 2017 - September 2017. Interested volunteers must be active at least during this month and list themselves at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Co-ordinator in the respective section. Changeover to happen on the 1st of August. Yashovardhan ( talk) 09:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Is a volunteer willing to moderate the discussion at Talk:2017 Finsbury_Park_attack#Back_to_the_original_question_again?. It appears that most of the parties concerned have filed a summary and they are willing for moderated discussion. Yashovardhan ( talk) 11:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Should a comment be added to the banner at the top of the page to please avoid editing the article in question after filing a case and while waiting to see whether it is accepted? Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
In the case in point, to be sure, it seems that the article was reworked by an editor who was not requesting dispute resolution, and this just left things not in their original state. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I would instead propose a banner that could be added to a page to indicate that there is currently a discussion here and that editors may wish to review said discussion before editing the page in question. DonIago ( talk) 14:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
It occurs to me that, in closing cases that are not ready for moderated discussion, volunteers should consider whether the requesting editor is very new and would benefit from some instruction as to the ways of Wikipedia. In particular, I tried to be informative in closing the request about BioArt. (Well, I made it into a request about BioArt, which is what was intended. It wasn't properly formatted at first.) Maybe we, as volunteers, should consider whether we need to try to explain to new editors what talk pages are for. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I have added it on the volunteer page here. Have a look and feel free to edit it as necessary. Yashovardhan ( talk) 06:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
A reminder. If any volunteer notices that a complaint has been filed at WP:ANI concerning disruptive editing of an article that is the subject of a dispute here, please close the dispute here. This noticeboard does not handle a dispute that is also pending in another content forum or in any conduct forum. This of course also applies if a case is filed at WP:AN, WP:ANEW, WP:AE, or WP:AIV. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I had to close a case as a conduct issue in which the filing party stated that they were acting on behalf of the subject organization. By the way, there is no need to take a case to the conflict of interest noticeboard if the conflict is clearly stated. Yuck. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello. You are invited to comment on this RfC, which seeks to reform certain aspects of Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. Biblio ( talk) 15:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Maybe I should ask this question at a more frequently watched talk page. A common issue at DRN is that the filing editor says that an issue is not about one particular article but a dispute between two editors across multiple articles. Often it is worded so that it could easily be taken to be a conduct dispute, a complaint against the other editor. However, I generally don’t want to refer an editor to a conduct forum when there are content aspects that can be resolved (and sometimes resolving the content issue causes the conduct to be ameliorated). (Anyway, WP:ANI very seldom accomplishes anything except against trolls.) Also, sometimes, when the problem is that the filing editor is making multiple unsourced edits (or other questionable edits) to multiple articles, and another editor is following them. In that case, the problem may be described as the second editor hounding the first editor, but they really have found it necessary to clean up behind them.
Sometimes, if the issue has to do with a group of related articles, there may be an appropriate WikiProject. Sometimes there isn’t.
Occasionally it is almost impossible, even after research, to figure out what the problem is.
Do other volunteers have comments? Do I need to go to a more popular project talk page? Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I come here based on advice on the moderator's talk page. This case was opened by a neutral editor, who was trying to help. When I was notified of the case I summarised the issues very concisely, as requested. I then waited for days for the process to continue. I was busy on the weekend with family issues and I didn’t get back to Wikipedia until Monday morning. I then discovered that the moderator had resumed the process on the weekend, and had already closed the case, without there having been any actual discussion. This issue has been thrashed out exhaustively at the article talk page, but has gridlocked on the interpretation of WP:NPOV. This DRN process could have helped, but now the problem is continuing. Is there anything that can be done? Wdford ( talk) 21:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Please remember to use the correct format (i.e.{{
User|example}}
instead of {{
user|example}}
) when indicating members of the volunteer resolvers (
WP:DRVOLUNTEERS). 2 users had the latter template recently causing them to not show up in the "Last Volunteer edit" column.
Hasteur (
talk) 17:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
If you are a volunteer and choose to mediate or moderate a dispute (1) thank you (2) please set the status from New to Open. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
There have been some recent concerns raised about the closing of threads when participating editors have not responded within 48 hours. I would like the comments of other volunteers and experienced editors. I will comment that this noticeboard is intended for the resolution of relatively simple disputes quickly, and that allowing breaks from participation will extend the time for resolution of disputes. I don't think that it is fair to volunteers to expect that volunteers will ping the editors on their talk pages; the watchlist capability exists precisely in order to enable editors to know when pages of concern have been updated. Do we need to update the general instructions for this noticeboard to remind participants more clearly of the obligation to watchlist this noticeboard and respond promptly? Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Please do not subst the DRN archive template. It apparently sometimes does weird things. Today it hid a case. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
A DRN request about PFC Cherno More Varna was closed as premature. While it is true that the discussion at the article's talk page is not recent, there has been extensive discussion at bg wiki talk page, including a third opinion by a bg wiki user/admin. The last comment there is from 29 July 2017. See also the archived discussion at WT:FOOTY which is also recent. Since all users involved are Bulgarian and article is basically a translation of bg:ПФК Черно море (Варна), I believe that we have already discussed this issue at length and haven't reached consensus.
Do we have to repeat the same discussion in English before resorting to DRN or the one at WT:FOOTY (in English) can serve as basis for a dispute resolution attempt via DRN? Yavorescu ( talk) 15:39, 1 August 2017 (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.
Has anyone else noticed that the {{pagelinks}} is working a little differently than it previously did, at least when the original page being referenced is an article talk page? Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
There have been issues raised at this noticeboard recently which the filing party has said involve multiple articles. I would appreciate comments from other volunteers about how to deal with such disputes. First, these disputes have often been worded as disputes about an editor, as conduct disputes. However, we have found that often resolving a content issue can ameliorate any conduct concerns. The real concern that I have with multi-article disputes is that they really have to be about content. My thought is that we should be willing to accept such disputes, subject to the usual rules (be civil and concise, comment on content, not contributors) if the content dispute has been discussed at length on an appropriate WikiProject talk page. (If there isn't an appropriate WikiProject, the discussion may have been too disconnected, or the issue may be disconnected). Comments? Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
At least three disputes that were 'In progress' were moved today (Aug 6) to the archive. And at least one of them - Talk:Phys.org#Edits today - was waiting for a response from the moderator. Was it intentional or a bug? And how the disputes should proceed now? Naesco ( talk) 17:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Just another brief word about this. DRN cases are designed to be completed quickly and therefore have a Do Not Archive date of only 14 days after listing. Once that date has been reached, the case will be archived if any 24 hour period passes without the case being edited. That's designed to keep cases moving. If you're a volunteer you should feel free to extend the DNA date, especially if the case gets a late start after initially being listed, and if the case typically has gaps of a day or two between responses. But cases should show continuous progress and should not be kept alive "just in case" someone eventually wants to make a response or continue the case. If the volunteer or a participant asks for a delay of a specific length — "I'll be out of town for 10 days" — that can also be a good reason to extend the DNA date if it's okay with everyone else. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 20:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
On the one hand, I was about to close the request concerning the Google memo, because there is a Request for Comments in progress, and an RFC takes precedence over other forms of dispute resolution, but another volunteer closed it. Thank you. On the other hand, I think that this was a case where the filing editor didn't understand how an RFC works. He said that the discussion was petering out. I think that he, in good faith, misunderstood, and thought that an RFC is meant to promote continuing discussion. It is meant to get comments, and discussion is optional. I have tried to explain to him. Sometimes we need to explain to an editor why we are closing a thread. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Dear all,
Following the DRN discussion here are some generally reliable secondary sources, all of them well-established news outlets that discuss IACA’s history and what the organization does. I hope they can be used to help build a more informative WP article about IACA.
Die Zeit (a leading German newspaper): http://www.zeit.de/2013/06/Antikorruptionsakademie-Laxenburg-Oesterreich (in German)
China Daily newspaper: http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2015-03/27/content_19923209.htm
Thomson Reuters Regulatory Intelligence (introductory part before the paywall): http://www.complinet.com/global/news/news/article.html?ref=187256&bulletin=spotlight®ion=_10170
These sources mention the following:
IACA is both an intergovernmental (international) organization and educational institution (China Daily).
IACA was set up in 2011 (China Daily), i.e. it was formally established as an international organization in that year. But IACA was launched in 2010, as the Wikipedia article currently states and as confirmed by the reference in Die Zeit to IACA’s inaugural conference in 2010 (see paragraph 6).
The China Daily article mentions three of IACA’s four main founding partners - the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the European Commission's Anti-Fraud Office, and the Austrian government (it should also mention Interpol too, as the UNODC press release does).
IACA offers academic degree programmes and standard and bespoke training (Thomson Reuters), including the Master in Anti-Corruption Studies (Die Zeit, paragraph 2).
IACA’s Dean and Executive Secretary is Martin Kreutner.
Sorry for not providing these sooner - was away for 2 weeks.
Best, Richard.eames ( talk) 13:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
...and let me again declare my COI regarding this page - I'm IACA's Head of Communications. Richard.eames ( talk) 13:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi - here are some additional reliable secondary sources on which further content can be derived for the article about IACA:
FCPA Blog (widely read in the anti-corruption and compliance community): http://www.fcpablog.com/blog/2015/2/25/whoa-enforcement-and-compliance-are-breaking-out-all-over.html -please note that this article was written by the FCPA Blog's own Publisher and Editor, not by a lecturer on IACA's programmes
Content here: IACA specializes in training mid-career anti-corruption professionals. It runs short and mid-length training courses and programmes. In 2012 it launched a two-year Master in Anti-Corruption Studies programme.
Radio France Internationale: http://www.rfi.fr/emission/20170517-bulgarie-retraites-plus-pauvres -click on the play button in the top right corner of the main photo, and the IACA story starts at 04:36
Content here: IACA has trained professionals in approx. 150 countries to date.
Best, Richard.eames ( talk) 10:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Have pasted these sources/content into the IACA article talk page. Richard.eames ( talk) 07:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
We need volunteer moderators for three cases. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I have a question about how to conduct dispute resolution at this noticeboard. I will be asking for advice from User:TransporterMan, the dispute resolution coordinator, and at Village Pump (miscellaneous). The question is what dispute resolution volunteers should do when one of the key editors, especially the filing party, is clearly having so much difficulty with English that it is hard to understand exactly what the issues are.
Editors who have limited ability in English are common, and normally are not a problem. If they create articles that have problems with grammar, the articles can be tagged as needing copy-edit or can be copy-edited. If it is possible to know what is being said, one can normally improve the article. If an article is so badly garbled that it is difficult to know what the subject, if it is very short, it can be tagged as A1. A longer article that is so garbled that it is not possible to know what it is about to improve it can be tagged as A7 if it appears to be about one of the kinds of things for which A7 applies, or otherwise can be PRODed. Also, sometimes it is appropriate to suggest politely to an editor that Wikipedia would benefit more if they would edit the Wikipedia in their first language. (The English Wikipedia has more than five million articles. Other Wikipedias have fewer. In a crude quantitative sense, they have greater need.)
However, if an editor is one of the principal editors in a content dispute and has difficulty in explaining what they want, what do we do? This has happened from time to time, and I don’t know of a right answer. The default answer seems to be that they are ignored. If they have a poorly stated complaint, they don’t get it resolved. If they make contentious edits, presumably to try to add information or to change the point of view, the edits can be reverted, but just reverting edits is less than ideal. Are there any ideas? Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Godric: Is this discussion still in progress, and is progress being made? It has been going on much longer than most disputes here. If it is still making progress, good. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I would like to add something to our current DRN header to help assist editors that request DRN mediation or participate in a DRN discussion. It might also be of help to add it to the actual filing form in some manner to remind editors of how Wikipedia discussions are supposed to work and that DRN adheres to these guidelines;
There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Pay particular attention to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which applies to talk pages as well as to articles: "Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." [1]
References
I think that this will, hopefully, make some things more clear to even more experienced content editors that might have less experience with talk page discussions. The addition of the BLP policy may actually be even more essential to keep editors in check about making claims about living people, perhaps with the additional DRN comment that; "Editors are living persons, some use their actual names. BLP policy may apply to claims made by an editor against another editor as well as other pertinent policies regarding DOXing". Of course, we wouldn't use the reference.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 04:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I made the bold edit to the header as follows;
Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. "Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.
I figured it best to keep it as simple as possible but still contain the most information.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 06:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
What was the BLP issue? I didn't see it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I saw a warning from a volunteer moderator that something might be a BLP violation. I have not been following the BOM dispute carefully, but on looking at it I didn't see anything that resembled a BLP violation. Was there a specific allegation about a contemporary scholar? What was so serious that it required a warning about requesting sanctions? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Is any other volunteer willing to take over the John McCain dispute? It appears that one of the editors may not be satisfied with my moderation, or perhaps that I am not maintaining proper neutrality. Can we have a different moderator? Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Will another volunteer please take a look at the case and advise me as to whether I am more or less right (and the fact that there had been a stable version for a long time does not change the fact that there is now a content issue) or whether I may be mistaken, and also at whether another volunteer should take over? Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Collapse misplaced and thus off-topic post and response, now filed on the main page. —
TransporterMan (
TALK) 17:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
|
---|
Dear Wiki admin - Recent release and update of iOS 11 for iPhone 6, 6s, and 7 have generated a lot of issues for iPhone users and widely reported in news media including BBC UK, The Telegraph, The Independent, The Australian, Business Insider, etc. A paragraph describing the issues reported and citations to sources were provided by me earlier on. Editor Guy Harris reviewed, edited and approved the writeup. But, Darius robin has repeatedly removed the whole section. His action contributes to censorship, and taking sides with APPLE. Wikipedia is for the public and Wikipedia does not take sides on any companies. One would expect his improvement on the article, not total censorship. As such, I would like to request help from Wiki admin to look at this case and allow the public information pertaining to iOS 11 issues to be presented in iOS 11 wikipedia page and block further censorship from editor Darius Robin Thank you all. Fellow007 ( talk) 16:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
|
DRN is, by its nature, a welcoming place for editors who want to try to resolve content disputes in good faith. However, I had to warn one editor that they were abusing DRN. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I will be making proposals for DRN reform to address this issue (and others) soon.
Nihlus 03:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
|
---|
I'm asking that someone step in as the DRN coordinator as the one we currently have (
Kostas20142) has barely participated in the process and was only active in disputes
for one week in July/August. I have volunteered as I'm supposed to start on December 1 but am not opposed to someone else (who is actually active) filling in for the rest of the month. The current coordinator didn't even contribute in their first month, and seemingly used this role to
gain additional user rights in order to bolster is
attempted RfA. I gave him the opportunity to pass it along to someone else, but he
declined that offer, showing poor judgment in the process. I also think it would be prudent to confirm those who wish to fulfill the role, by having active DRN volunteers participate in a discussion on each person wanting to volunteer for DRN coordinator, just so that this doesn't happen again.
Nihlus 18:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I generally didn't take cases during my stints as coordinator, but I did try to keep up with the items listed at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Coordinator#Tasks. However, even then, it sometimes happened that new enthusiastic volunteers would sometimes come in and frequently get to those tasks before I could get around to them (eh, Robert? ) and when that happened I would sometimes slack off and let them handle it. So long as someone is generally keeping up with them at least every day or two, I generally think we're okay. If Kostas says that he's willing to do that, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for the rest of his current term. Frankly — and I'm not commenting on whether or not Kostas is too inexperienced by saying this and, indeed, I express no opinion on that issue — so long as someone is keeping up with the coordinator's duties, I think the bigger problem that we've encountered here is inexperienced volunteers who take cases without having any idea of how to handle them properly than administrative tasks going undone. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Coordinator DiscussionsI would like to suggest that future discussions of who is to be and who is the coordinator should be here, in general, and not on talk pages. Is there a reason why they shouldn't be here? Also, I will admit that maybe I should have been more aware of this in the past few days, but exactly what is the complaint anyway? Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I didn't want to pile on, but let's go through the list:
I hope this demonstrates my concern. Nihlus 01:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
This is incredibly unseemly. We're supposed to be the editors whose neutrality and consideration can resolve disputes. If we cannot resolve this kind of matter within ourselves without the kind of churning that is taking place here then we have totally failed in our mission. The fact that this minor matter has become as protracted and disruptive as it has makes me utterly lose confidence in either of you as having the discretion needed to participate in dispute resolution. Stop, just stop. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 23:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
|
Note: I've moved this to the bottom of the talk page, as per convention. ProgrammingGeek talktome 14:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I would like to seek help and I think the current DRN volunteer Nihlus should not be involved in this iOS 11 dispute coordination. Please read his writings and reply. I believe there is a conflict of interests here and he should not served as a dispute resolution coordinator. Fellow007 ( talk) 03:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
2p - I think Fellow007's issue with Nihlus is that Nihlus is giving guidance on the reliable sources guideline. While the role of the moderator is to facilitate discussion (not a third opinion), I don't think Nihlus was out of line at all when he said that the sources are not reliable, because to be frank, they're not. Fellow007, participation at DRN is voluntary (although a good idea). I think that Nihlus is giving good advice, but if you have a fundamental disagreement, then an RFC or third opinion may be the way to go. I do hope you can work this out. ProgrammingGeek talktome 14:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)