Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. It is not to be confused with WP:DNR.

	Skip to open disputes • skip to newest thread •

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, mediation, or other noticeboards. 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 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, whose 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. The coordinator also collects monthly metrics for the noticeboard. The current co-ordinator is TransporterMan (talk · contribs · email).
Do you need assistance?			Would you like to help?
Request dispute resolution 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. Refrain from discussing editorial conduct, and remember this noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment only on the contributions not the contributor. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. 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.			Become a volunteer 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, except as noted here. 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
Talk:Unseen character#Maris_Crane	1New	Mmyers1976 (t)	2 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 2 hours

Last updated by DRN clerk bot (talk) at 04:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Current disputes

Talk:Unseen character#Maris_Crane

– New discussion.

Filed by Mmyers1976 on 15:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Unseen character (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mmyers1976 (talk · contribs)
• Quis separabit? (talk · contribs) (should be Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs))
• GretDrabba (talk · contribs)
• 99.192.53.136 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Editor(s?) are excluding Vera from Cheers and Maris from Frasier from inclusion as unseen characters even though the creators of both characters explicitly said the characters are unseen and deliberately kept so in the documentary on the making of Frasier “Behind the Couch: The Making of Frasier”. The producers state that they initially did not want to make Niles's wife Maris an unseen character because they did not want to draw parallels to Vera, Norm's wife on Cheers. They originally intended that she would appear after several episodes, but were enjoying writing excuses for her absence that eventually it was decided she would remain unseen, and after the increasingly eccentric characteristics ascribed to her, no real actress could portray her. The exclusionists base their argument on direct viewing of episodes in which the characters' faces are deliberately obscured and they have no dialogue, which is done for comedic effect to capitalize on the unseen character status. The exclusionists are interpreting a primary source and applying their own judgement over whether it meets an unsourced definition. This is original research.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Issue has been discussed for almost 2 years with no consensus.

How do you think we can help?

1. Provide guidance on scope of "unseen character" definition 2. Is viewing an episode and deciding that a character whose face is deliberately hidden and who does not have dialogue does not meet an unsourced criteria an instance of Original research or synthesis 3. Should a character's creator's opinion that the character is an "unseen character" trump Wikipedians' interpretion of whether the character is or not?

Summary of dispute by Quis separabit?

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

Summary of dispute by GretDrabba

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

Talk:Unseen character#Maris_Crane discussion

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

• Volunteer note - There has been limited recent discussion on the article talk page, but not really enough to warrant moderated discussion here. There has been off-and-on discussion of these characters for two years, but the recent discussion has been minimal, so that further discussion would be in order. I am leaving this request standing, neither accepting nor declining it, to permit further talk page discussion. Also, one of the editors listed as a party, first, doesn't exist (is misspelled), and, second, doesn't seem to have participated. The filing party is requested to recheck the list of editors. After further discussion on the talk page, moderated discussion may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the nonexistent party, I am a bit confused. There is a Quis separabit? who left a message on my talk page, but when I click on his signature it goes to the page of a user named Rms125a@hotmail.com. This latter user is also the one who reverted my edits twice. I believe they are one and the same editor, someone who has created confusion many times in the past by insisting on keeping his grandfathered username that is not in accord with policy but having another username in his signature. There is also an IP address that makes very similar arguments to Quis separabit?/rms125a@hotmail.com, and may be yet a third manifestation of the same person. So while there is the appearance of three people opposed to Vera and Maris being included, in reality there may only be one. I don't know if this qualifies as sockpuppetry or not, but it causes a lot of confusion, and also appears to be a case of page ownership. I think this multiple identities issue has muddied the waters on the talk page, and it along with the apparent page ownership are why I think it would be easier to handle this here rather than untangling all those issues on the article talk page. Mmyers1976 (talk) 04:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I would like to know which IP address is being imputed to me (see [1]). Also, as most editors should know, many usernames (i.e. Rms125a@hotmail.com) are not the same as users' signatures (i.e. Quis separabit). Quis separabit? 13:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

That would be User talk:99.192.88.59/User talk:99.192.88.39/User talk:99.192.95.249/User talk:99.192.81.244. Again, I only said the IP may be the same as you as he advances similar arguments to you, and seeing Rms125a@hotmail.com revert my changes while Quis separabit? posts a warning on my talk page and and on the article talk page, it causes a lot of confusion about your identity. I get that your "Rms125a@hotmail.com" name was "grandfathered" in and so you are allowed to keep it, and that other people also have different signatures from their user names, but that doesn't mean any of this constitutes best practices; it causes unnecessary confusion in reconciling edit histories to talk pages, etc. Indeed, the guideline on signatures warns that signatures like yours which display a different nickname from your username can cause confusion and suggests instead either adding your username in addition to your nickname on your signatures, or changing your username. Also, it might help not to have punctuation marks at the end of your signature that might be overlooked as part of your signature by other editors trying to name you on Talk pages, etc. It's not even necessary for the phrase that is your signature, as Classical Latin had no question mark, the use of interrogative pronouns indicated that the sentence was a question. Just a suggestion. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There are either two or three editors in addition to the filing party. There is one editor who has been properly notified. There is also another editor who uses a confusing signature that bears no resemblance to their user name, which has been grandfathered. They have not been notified, nor listed properly, because the filing party misspelled one form of their name. There is also an IP address which may be either the editor with the confusing signature logged out or another unregistered editor. They must be notified, because they might be another editor altogether. (Also, editing logged out is only sockpuppetry if there is reason to deceive. Normally editing logged out is carelessness. It is sockpuppetry if the original editor is blocked or banned, or if the original editor is trying to give the false impression of numbers, e.g., in an RFC or AFD. None of these apply here, so that either the IP is a different editor, or is accidentally editing logged out.) Discussion should go back to the talk page for now. If it continues to be inconclusive, the filing party should notify the IP and the other editor. (If they request help notifying the editor with the confusing username and signature, they are likely to get help. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)))

I have notified the IP on all the addresses I saw on the article talk page in the hope that at least one of these dynamic IPs will come up the next time the person comes onto this site, and they will see the notification. The request is to participate in the new section I started at the end of the article talk page, with the information that there is an open DRN that will be continued if consensus isn't reached. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer question - Let's get to the one question, and it isn't an allegation of a conduct issue. Have you, User:Rms125@hotmail.com, been sometimes editing the Unseen character article and talk page logged out? (By the way, it isn't a static IP address. It changes within the block, as is often the case.) As you will notice above, I have stated that, if that is happening, it is just a mistake and not a conduct issue. If you have been edited logged out, you have been notified of the filing, and are asked to be more careful to log in before editing. If not, the filing party must notify the IP editor, and the IP editor is advised to establish an account. In any case, please go back to the article talk page and have at least two new rounds of discussion. I realize that this issue has been going on for years and would like to get it taken care of. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

On rare occasions I have made edits while not logged in, usually after logging out and then going back and resuming without realizing. It is very rare, and sometimes when it happens I will make a consecutive edit after logging back in and leave a note in the edit summary explaining what happened. Quis separabit? 01:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ That being said, these ([2], [3]) are not my edits. I don't even know or care about the stuff these edits entail. I wan never a Cheers or Frasier fanatic. Quis separabit? 01:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

BTW: This is my (Rms125a@hotmail.com) IP when I am not logged in. I know it's dynamic but it should give you an idea as to the range: 68.175.105.181 (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - We clearly have four parties to this controversy, three registered editors (one of whom has a confusing signature) and an unregistered editor in the 99.* block. We have had marginal recent discussion on the article talk page. Discuss on the article talk page. If discussion is inconclusive, moderated discussion here is in order. Any further comments here about who the parties are, or any further discussion here prior to new discussion on the article talk page, may be hatted. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)