Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:DRN)
Jump to: navigation, search
Skip to threads Skip to open disputes • skip to newest thread(purge cache)
Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution and get assistance to the right place; request for comment, conduct RFC, mediation or other noticeboard, if involving other issues. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button Button rediriger.png to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember guidelines and policy when discussing issues. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.

The DRN noticeboard has a rotating co-ordinator, and their role is to help keep the noticeboard organised, ensuring disputes are attended to in a timely manner, are escalated to alternative forums as required, and that new volunteers get any assistance that they need. They also collect the monthly metrics for the noticeboard.

The current co-ordinator is TransporterMan (talk · contribs).

Do you need assistance? Would you like to help?

If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. Comment on the contributions not the contributor. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.

  • Please refrain from discussing editorial conduct, and remember this noticeboard is for content disputes only.

Check that a notice was delivered to each person you add to the filing. If missing, add {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page then sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~".

If you need help:
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
  • The dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before requesting help at DRN.
  • This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
  • For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over this page to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.

Volunteers should remember:
  • Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
  • Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
  • Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information) and the bot will archive it soon after.
Case Created Last volunteer edit Last modified
Title Status User Time User Time User Time
natural numbers 7Closed Thomas Walker Lynch (t) 2014-10-17 06:50:00 TransporterMan (t) 2014-10-20 14:11:00 TransporterMan (t) 2014-10-20 14:11:00
Person of Interest (TV series) 1New AbramTerger (t) 2014-10-18 11:54:00 None n/a AbramTerger (t) 2014-10-18 11:54:00
Last updated by DRN clerk bot (talk) at 14:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Current disputes[edit]

natural numbers[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Thomas Walker Lynch on 06:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC).

Person of Interest (TV series)[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by AbramTerger on 11:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Talk:Person of Interest_(TV_series)#Revamped_Recurring_characters discussion

Several issues of content have arisen. I can accept (though I don't agree with) the rejection of using the TV guidlines, I think the content ordering should be consistent within the article and that some standards need to be in place. Other "related" discussions that are also in dispute to some degree:



Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried several compromises, all have been reverted. Several discussions have been started on the talk page(dog as main character, main cast order, recurring cast ordering). i have also asked for a discussion on user talk. There seems (at least to me) a reluctance to discuss and explain the logic and maintain a logic in the article. I try WP:BRD, but get revert with a claim to keep the status quo until a consensus is reached, but then no attempt to explain.

How do you think we can help?

I am not sure. I am not sure it is possible to insist someone discuss and insist someone try to compromise and collaborate (or even follow article guidelines). Even in the discussion at Talk:Person_of_Interest_(TV_series)#The_dog_as_a_main_character where there does seem a local consensus to do something, Drmargi reverts it. I am hoping that some encouragement could help get Drmargi to at least explain their logic so I can work with that.

Summary of dispute by Drmargi[edit]

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Person of Interest (TV series) discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.