Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard

Recommended Policy Re-Reading for New Volunteers

I have two suggestions for policies that should be required re-reading by new DRN volunteers. (Since new DRN volunteers are often experienced editors, they have probably already read these important policies, but should re-read them because a precise understanding is sometimes important in content disputes.) They are Wikipedia is not censored and what is not vandalism.

The first policy is frequently misconstrued in content disputes. Some editors think that the policy is a license to argue against the removal of non-neutral point of view material, undue weight, or material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons on the grounds that the removal is "censorship". As the policy states, material will be removed to maintain neutral point of view and prevent BLP violations. The policy only states that material will not be removed because it is offensive. (However, offensive material may be removed if it is inappropriate for some other reason. The insertion of irrelevant profanity in an article is a common form of vandalism. It will be reverted, not so much because it is offensive, as because it is irrelevant to the article and disruptive.) Moderators need to understand exactly what this policy does and does not say, because sometimes an editor will complain "Censorship" inappropriately.

The second policy is also important in content disputes. Some editors will claim that the removal or reversion of their edits is vandalism. Real vandalism is not the subject of a content dispute. Moderators need to understand exactly what is not vandalism, because allegations that good-faith (even incorrect good faith) edits are vandalism make it difficult to resolve content disputes.

While moderators do not take "sides" in content disputes, they have to be on the "side" of understanding Wikipedia policy, and correct understanding of these policies is sometimes important to resolving content disputes.

Comments? Questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

{{collapsetop|Not discussion by other volunteers. Take concerns about what is and is not vandalism to [[WT:VANDALISM|vandalism talk page]] or [[WP:VPP|Village pump (policy)]]. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 16:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)}}

Certainly the ordinary "vandals" are easy to spot -- they blank pages, paint swastikas on graveyards, and replace images of politicians with other biological species. Vandals don't always arrive as lone gunmen, however. Nothing stops vandals from attacking WP in gangs or packs, committed to political or sociological agendas. Such groups have the potential of being vandal-like in their WP:NOTHERE intentions. Just as nice manners are not exclusive to nice people, good grammar and subtle editing is not exclusive to well-intended editors. The pro-WP editor who encounters such a group may very well open a DRR to bring attention to the issue or resolve it. I therefore argue that the statement above is erroneous and should be removed from the policy ("Real vandalism is not the subject of a content dispute."). Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

An editor wrote: 'I therefore argue that the statement above is erroneous and should be removed from the policy ("Real vandalism is not the subject of a content dispute.").' What policy? Those words are on this talk page, not in a policy. Anyway, real vandalism is not the subject of a content dispute. As what is not vandalism explains, there are various sorts of bad conduct that are not vandalism. Editing with a political or sociological agenda is not vandalism and may be the subject of a content dispute. Non-neutral editing can be harmful to Wikipedia, but is usually done in good faith and is not vandalism. Do not refer to edits as vandalism unless it is clear that they were done in bad faith. Do any other DRN volunteers have comments or questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

(1) "What Policy?" he asked. The "Recommended Policy" proposed, of course. (2) "Usually done in good faith" is not the subject of my comment, so we needn't discuss it. My comment concerned the cases where it is not done in good faith. And you and I have both seen it on Wikipedia. (3) Please do not use this discussion as a "teachable moment" to instruct me on what I should say in other discussions. This is this discussion, and you brought up the subject of vandalism. I hope you will address the issue as it is evolving. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree with Robert that tag-teamed POV editing, that is per Sfarney "gangs or packs, committed to political or sociological agendas," while perhaps vandal-like may well be a conduct violation but is not ordinarily vandalism as defined by Wikipedia in VANDAL. NOTHERE is also a matter which is vandal-like but is not vandalism as defined. The distinction is important because, first, vandalism which meets the definition can be reverted immediately without other reason and such reversions are exempt from 3RR, and second, labeling behavior as vandalism when it is not vandalism as defined is itself a sanctionable misbehavior (at least if repeated). As for the conduct/content issue, neither tag-teamed POV editing nor NOTHERE editing is a content matter that will ordinarily be handled at 3O, DRN, or MEDCOM, however. Disputes over the edits which result from such conduct can, of course, be handled in those forums, but discussion of the motives or conduct of the editors who made them will not ordinarily be considered or allowed and editors wishing to discuss such matters will ordinarily be referred to one of the conduct dispute resolution processes, such as ANI. (And if they choose to do so, the content DR process will usually be closed to allow that process to be resolved first.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC) (And, I've un-collapsed this discussion because it does now at least marginally involve what we do here at DRN. — TM) Oh, and PS one more thought: Robert is also right in that the reason that those forums do not accept or allow discussion of conduct is that doing so makes resolving the actual content disputes near impossible. — TM 05:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Also, there is the matter of intent. The intent of vandalism is to harm Wikipedia, or at least not to improve it. (Maybe the intention only is to have some dirty fun that doesn't help Wikipedia.) Although tag-team POV editing harms Wikipedia, its intent is to improve it, because the POV warriors honestly believe that imposing their POV is serving the cause of truth. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

{{collapsebottom}}

I agree with what Robert has said in his first post in this section, but FSM knows that I'd settle for just being sure that new volunteers had both thoroughly re-read and had a practical working knowledge of:

• V,
• NOR,
• NPOV,
• NOT (which includes NOTCENSORED),
• BLP,
• the idea that just because something is one way in one article that doesn't create precedent for it being that way in another, and
• that the principle that standards adopted by wikiprojects only have the status of essays, not policy or guidelines ^{(source 1) (source 2)} except in those rare cases when they have actually been promoted to policy or guidelines (which, ironically, is exactly what happened in source 2, a wikiproject standard which was adopted as a guideline while remaining part of a wikiproject page).

Having the additional knowledge of NOTVAND, would certainly be a lagniappe. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that I overlooked the obvious policies because they seemed obvious to me, but I agree that many parties to cases don't understand the policies, which is sometimes why the cases wind up in dispute resolution, and that moderators need to understand the policies, and if necessary to enforce them. My concern is that some editors who do understand the core policies are nonetheless in the habit of yelling "Censorship" or "Vandalism" to "win" a content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Uechi-Ryu

Does any other volunteer have advice as to what to say to the filing party? The filing unregistered editor takes issue with changes to the ordering of organizations in a list by another unregistered editor, but the other editor only makes changes to the article and has not discussed. The filing party first went to the Help Desk and was told to read the dispute resolution policy and then follow one of the procedures listed there. They chose to request a Third Opinion, but I declined it because it would have been a Second Opinion. Now they have filed at DRN, which also requires prior discussion on a talk page. Since the other editor doesn't discuss, what advice can the filing party be given? They rightly don't want to edit-war, but what can they do with an editor who won't discuss? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I encountered a slightly different but similar situation at Third Opinion earlier, in which a registered editor would add a template to an article, and had it reverted silently by an unregistered editor. Since there was no discussion, Third Opinion and DRN weren't options, but I was able to advise the registered editor to request semi-protection, which was done. When the article came off semi-protection, the ninja returned, and the article had to be semi-protected again. However, in this case, since both of the editors are unregistered, semi-protection would block the filing party, and the filing party clearly is the one who is trying to edit collaboratively. Does anyone have any advice for the filing party? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Once again, does anyone have any advice for the filing party? (Well, I had one piece of advice for the filing party which they strongly rejected for a completely invalid reason. I said to create an account, and they said that they valued their privacy. Many unregistered editors know beyond knowledge that that preserves your privacy better than using a pseudonym, but that is completely wrong. No one except trusted CheckUser functionaries can see through a pseudonym, but anyone can geolocate an IP address.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Afro

I have a few questions for other volunteers. First, do you agree that the discussion on the article talk page is not sufficient to accept a case here? Second, what is the procedure if the filing party does not list all of the editors who have edited the article? Should editors who have edited the article recently but not discussed also be listed as parties? (My assumption is that they should, because they have a right to discuss here.) Third, if two requests are made concerning the same article by different editors, am I correct that one of the case requests can be opened and the other one declined as a duplicate? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

One statement by each editor isn't enough and I've closed both cases for that reason. What we're looking for is back-and-forth. A couple of edits each is the absolute minimum in my opinion and more than that if the edits aren't substantially on point or are mostly about conduct. The practice here has long been not to worry much about editors who edit but don't discuss; I think that's okay but it does of course have some downside. I wouldn't ever close a case because non-discussing editors are not listed (like I would do an administrative close if more than a couple of editors involved in the discussion were left out), but on the other hand if I knew they were there (which I usually would not know because I don't ordinarily look at the article history) and might be a problem, I might add them myself or ask the listing party about them. As for your "third" I don't see a problem with that, but I just copied-and-pasted my DRN archive top tag from one to the other. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, much of the discussion occurs in the months–long warring via edit summary in the article, including since my filing of the dispute. I was hoping to achieve some form of consensus with the help of mediation rather than going the block–by–WP:EW route.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that you make one more attempt to discuss on the article talk page. Discussion on the article talk page is a precondition to mediation. If the other editors will not discuss with you on the article talk page, it is unlikely that they will participate constructively in mediation, and mediation (either here or at formal mediation is voluntary. If the other editors won't discuss, and continue to do slow-motion edit-warring via edit summaries, that is a conduct issue. I agree that we would always rather that they used some sort of mediation or other form of content dispute resolution than have to deal with conduct, but all of the content dispute resolution forums are voluntary, and there is very little if anything that can be done short of blocking for editors who won't discuss. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The Amazing Race filing

This filing was premature because each editor had only made one statement. However, it appears that the case was filed manually, and didn't have a Status field and a Do Not Archive Until date. For that reason, I had to delete the case and have explained to the filing party on their talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC) User:TransporterMan, User: Hasteur - Is it correct that cases that were not filed using the template should be deleted because they break the bot? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, either deleted or moved manually into the archive. Either works, but I think deletion is preferable. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Or if you want to go the extra mile, you could pro-forma attach the header components of filing a DRN case request. If desired, I could have the bot write to a error log page (or to users talkpages) if the parsing failed. Hasteur (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Going the extra mile might have been appropriate if the filing wasn't premature, but the filing was premature. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Referrals to formal mediation

Since I'm also the Chairperson of the Mediation Committee, I'm very uncomfortable closing cases at DRN for the purpose of referring them to Medcom. If a DRN volunteer sees a case that they think should be closed and referred — and we've had discussions here at the DRN talk page that in addition to especially complex cases that any case with more than 5 or 6 parties probably ought to be referred because they're rarely successful at DRN — please feel free to just go ahead and do it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Bot (or something) gone a bit weird

Why have all the cases from Talk:Amway#FTC in_lead disappeared? I suspect that Robert, when closing that case, might have closed the others by mistake, but the one I was working on still had the potential to go somewhere...