Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Transferring discussions between noticeboards

It appears that discussions needing to be referred to another noticeboard use two templates. I am copying the exact template of a real discussion transferred from the RS Noticeboard to the External Links Noticeboard. The first template is placed on the thread at the original board:

{{dmt|Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Personal_websites_of_disaffected_members_of_religious_groups}}

produces:

Moved to Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard § Personal websites of disaffected members of religious groups

Then the second template is placed on the transferred discussion at the target noticeboard location with the discussion copy pasted into a new section:

{{dmf|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#External_Links}}

produces:

Moved from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § External Links

Of course...it could be either placement first I suppose. Now, I went ahead and attributed in the edit summary, however these seem to be attribution tags in themselves.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 03:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Genetically modified food controversies

Recusing from request. Interactions with Canoe1967.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 21:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Volunteer restructure

Hi all. I've implemented the change to the volunteer list layout. Can you all please add yourself back on by going to this page and follow the instructions. It's largely designed to make us a bit more human. I've also implemented the co-ordinator role, and I think it best to lead by example, so I will do the first 2 months, ending 31 Sept. Please add yourself on when possible. Off to bed. Exhausted. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 17:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea of a co-ordinator. I'd be happy to take it on at some point for a rotation but I may be moving to Germany with work in October for six months and I don't know what my availability will be from then so I'll have to wait before committing. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 12:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I am willing to coordinate when there is no one else available. Not because I don't like doing it. I do, but because my last efforts proved to be controversial to at least one very vocal critic of DR, and perhaps even a couple of volunteers here. I cannot give up on this project just because my efforts were not seen as improvements by some. But if my coordinating this project causes issues...it isn't good for the project at all.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 04:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I have left the board

All cases that I have contributed to or taken on will need another volunteer. Don't think there is anything I myself was handling alone so this shouldn't be a problem. If it is, please let me know and I will wrap things up with regards to my input. I hope to return at some point when I am sure my involvement is a net positive.--Mark _{Just ask!} 05:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I, for one, very much appreciate the work you have done here. Please keep an eye on DRN; every so often someone proposes or implements changes and your viewpoint and opinions on those would be invaluable. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Procedural confusion

(Mostly @Steven Zhang: but ultimately to everyone.) Re: the removal of the opening statement sections and the corresponding change of the instruction line after the "X discussion" subhead to "Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary."

No one, disputants or volunteers, knows what to do. That instruction line discourages the parties other than the listing party from responding, but if no one responds then a volunteer doesn't have anything to do.

I can't speak for anyone other than me, but I'm not willing to drop a "Welcome to DRN, this discussion is open" message onto a listing, raise hopes that I'm going to take the dispute, and get listed in the status box as the volunteer on the dispute until I see what the other listed parties have to say about it. There are some kinds of disputes which I just don't care to take (and, indeed, there are several of those kinds sitting idle on the mainpage right now). The simplest remedy would be to change that introduction line to something like: "Parties other than the listing party should feel free to state their positions, but please avoid responding to one another's statements before discussion is opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary." I was just going to boldly do that, but I don't have the coding skills to figure out how to do it.

Yes, that raises the specter of the "close because everyone's not answered and it's stale" issue, but without that or some other fix there are going to be cases which just sit here because no one wants to take them before they know what's going on. We're also seeing cases where no volunteer chimes in and the discussion has simply moved from the article talk page to here and is proceeding with no volunteer's intervention. That's not at all a good thing and risks DRN getting the reputation as "just another dramaboard". It ordinarily didn't happen with the opening statement setup because disputants understood that they shouldn't be responding to one another. Once again, I don't know about everyone else but I'm not willing to step in and tell them to stop the discussion in a case that I'm not willing to generally take on because to do so would unfairly raise the expectations of the disputants and would make it less likely that some other volunteer would take the case when they see a volunteer already listed in the case status form. And that problem is going to remain even if we change the instruction line. I'm strongly in favor of going back to the opening statements and "please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary" format.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to take a step back and review the state of the board and what we actually want to accomplish. Currently we're sort of between states with half of an old system and half of a new system. One of the issues I'm seeing currently is simply a lack of people taking cases, I usually restrict myself to a limited number of cases at one time so I don't dilute my attention to them too much. Much like TransporterMan there are some cases I would prefer not to take also.

Thinking about it, I agree with TransporterMan about bringing back the opening statements in some form as there is a clear difference between the statements and a discussion. Maybe if we could bring them back but in a less formal way. For example, rather than "Opening statements" they are "Summary of the dispute from <NAME>" or something to that effect. Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

That would be fine by me, and would not only be less formal but also more self-explanatory. And I certainly agree about the lack of volunteers, too. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's try reinstating the opening statements. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to do that? I don't know how. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm organising that. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 14:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd love to help lay some procedure/template/style track but I promised that I'd sit down for a brainstorming session once my currently active BRFAs got resolved. Please feel free to provide additional hot pokers to the Bot Approvals Group to get the requests moved along as it's aparently in vogue to ignore specifc requests by editors with extra special attention grabbing flags on them. I don't ask for much, just that people respond back when they've committed to doing a task. Hasteur (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, the opening statements has been re-implemented. My schedule is a little freer this week so I'll have some more time to go through DRN threads and clear them out. Considering doing a fresh survey to try and identify what we can do to get more active volunteers. Maybe badges like the teahouse would work... Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

No discussion closes advice page

I've written this tldr advice guide to which to point editors when I close a request for insufficient discussion. Anyone else who wishes to use it is welcome to do so. Best regards, your friendly neighborhood TransporterMan (TALK) 19:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The navbox thing

How come the Ghost in the Shell DRN isn't in the big navbox thing?—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

We briefly moved to a subpage system but there was a number of technical issues with the bots so we moved back. Some of the cases are still on the subpages, like the one you refer to. Only disputes on the DRN page itself are seen by the bot Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 22:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I've closed the Ghost in the Shell DRN subpage as we've gone 24 hours beyond the 24 given by Transporterman. I followed the reccomendations for closing and intend to archive the subpage in 48 hours from now so that we're truly done with it. Hasteur (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

DRN Closed improperly

"DRN:2008 Mumbai attacks#Recent_dispute_about_allegation" closed only in 7 days, it seems volunteer are not refering to discussion on article talk page where involved usres have agreed that they will not participate and DRN open for independent users. It should be re-open and volunteers should refer standard procedure for keeping the dispute open for at least 30 days--Ali aff (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood the purpose of dispute resolution. It is not a mechanism for getting 'independent users' to make decisions - instead it is a mechanism to help those already involved in a dispute to resolve the matter amongst themselves. Certainly, uninvolved contributors can participate too, but it is essential that those already involved take part, in order to explain what the dispute is about, and what the differing opinions are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I can't see anything on Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks to indicate that anyone else had agreed to anything. You seem to have made the suggestion, and got no response. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I initially thought that uninvolved contributors will review the article talk page discussion and will participate to resolve the dispute. Anyway, can you please reopen the DRN so that I can get a chance to do it in a right way.--Ali aff (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I want this fact to be included in the topic or article. DRN was closed prematurely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.190.150.100 (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Pokemon dispute

I'm recused on that one for several different reasons, so someone else is going to have to catch 'em all. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I will also be stepping back from this one as I feel particularly strongly about this issue and wouldn't like to be involved as a neutral party with that stance Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 23:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thread RE: MedCom on Jimmy Wales's talk page.

Hi all,

I spoke with Jimmy about MedCom at Wikimania (and prior to that via email) and have started a discussion on his talk page. You can find it here. You are welcome to comment. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 04:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Sheila Carter Article

Dispute resolution requests made on this page will not be answered. In order to request dispute resolution, click here and follow the instructions. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I'm having a dispute with a user named Beaconboof ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Beaconboof&action=edit&redlink=1 ). I've sent them a message. I've also started a discussion on the 'Talk' page of the Sheila Carter article but they've ignored it all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sheila_Carter It's an article regarding a fictional character named Sheila Carter. The problem is Beaconboof, at some point, filled the latter part of the article as well as the lead & the infobox with viewers speculation, questioning and fans wishes without discussing it at all! I do not always monitor that article, that's why I only very recently found out. All I want is the article to be unbiased, objective and simply resume storylines the way they've played out onscreen. - 1. What happened is the character of Sheila Carter (The Young & the Restless), a very well know villain, tricked her friend and accomplice Sugar into having plastic surgery to look just like her. Sheila then arranged for Sugar to be committed to some mental institution so everyone would think Sheila was put away and was not a threat. Sugar ended up leaving that facility, then stabbed Scotty 'cause she knew that would hurt Sheila a lot. Sugar got arrested and Lauren Fenmore Baldwin, Sheila's nemesis, realized Sugar was not Sheila 'cause the latter could not walk well at the time. - 2. In the following scene, the real Sheila was seen at a plastic surgeon's asking him to make her look like a person on a photograph she handed him. Several months later, she came back looking exactly like Phyllis Summers. Actress Michelle Stafford confirmed several times the character she portrayed was Sheila Carter, so did former executive producer and head writer Lynn Marie Latham. Sheila as Phyllis kept acting like the old Sheila and also remembered stuff only the old Sheila and a few others did (taking pictures of Lauren & Brad). Lauren ended up shooting Sheila in self-defense. An autopsy showed it's truly Sheila that got shot. - 3. Years later, Sheila's never-before heard of sister, Sarah Smythe, showed up in town looking exactly like Lauren Fenmore after cosmetic surgery. Sarah confirmed several times her sister Sheila truly did have surgery to look like Phyllis. Sarah said Phyllis made her think of Sheila. Sarah showed Lauren a picture of herself and Sheila before their surgeries. Sarah also held both Lauren & Phyllis responsible for Sheila's death. As a matter of fact, Sarah tried to kill Phyllis twice but Lauren shot her in self-defense before she could kill Phyllis. Actress Tracey E. Bregman confirmed in an interview Sarah is indeed Sheila Carter's sister and that Daisy Carter & Ryder Callahan are Sheila's children. This is what played out onscreen and was confirmed by actors, execs and writers. The problem is storylines 2 & 3 weren't well received and accepted by quite some viewers and fans of the Sheila character. Some of them refuse to believe it's Sheila that was made to look like Phyllis and that Sarah was ever her sister. Some of them also refuse to believe Daisy & Ryder are truly Sheila's children with Tom Fisher. Beconboof is one of them and even replaced Sheila's name by the name Pheila in the latter part of the article. The name of the character is Sheila, not Pheila. This is when Becaonboof started making such changes without discussing it first: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sheila_Carter&diff=499017451&oldid=499017269 I have found a solution. Since Beaconboof is not responding and refuses to discuss it on the 'Talk' page, I re-edited the article, once again, so it simply shows the facts as played out onscreen. I then added in a new section called 'Critical Reception' in which I address all of the viewers & fans' concerns, speculations and presumptions (Sheila as Phyllis and Sarah as possible imposters etc.) I'm trying to be fair! What did Beaconboof do? They've just reverted my edits... Once again, all I want is the article to be unbiased and present what happened onscreen and was confirmed by executive producers, writers and actors. I have taken the time to address concerns, presumptions & speculations by Beaconboof, fans and viewers of the soap opera in a special section of the article but that ain't enough for that editor. They absolutely want the intro, the latter part and the infobox of the article to reflect THEIR PERSONAL disbelief (or disdain) of elements from storylines from 2006 and onward... I've had to revert it again... One more thing, Beaconboof has recently edited the Daisy Carter article and kept implying Daisy is not truly Sheila Carter's daughter... What do you think? According to the 'Young & The Restless', Daisy IS Sheila's daughter. Period! Why take a fictional storyline so personally? I've just reverted their edits. That's exactly the issue I'm having with that editor; just because they do not like or accept a storyline, they keep editing articles in a biased manner. As for references, I did not write most of the 'Storylines' section. I've only made minor changes to the '2005-2007' part and added in the '2009-2012' section as well as the 'Critical Reception' segment. I have slightly edited the lead of the article & the infobox so they reflect what was seen onsceen and confirmed, NOT viewers' disbelief etc. All that disbelief is addressed in 'Critical Reception'. I have now added 1 reference: http://www.soapcentral.com/yr/whoswho/daisy.php . I wanted to add in this link ( http://soapcentral.com/yr/whoswho/sheila.php ) but it's already being used earlier in the article. Now, see this... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Fisher#Storylines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Abbott_Bardwell#Storylines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Baldwin#Storylines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Abbott_Fenmore#Storylines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_Fenmore#Storylines I did not write any of the 5 articles above, and none of them use any reference in their 'Storylines' section at all! Soap opera articles on Wikipedia very often lack references in their 'Storylines' sections 'cause it's just viewers that watch the show then type in what they saw. Israell (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Returning DRN from archive

Recently, a thread i've opened was archived without solution (see DRN (Kurdish separatism in Iran). Since the dispute has recently heated up, i would like to return it for discussion and ask more attention to the issue. Can i do that?Greyshark09 (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to relist it via the listing form. Merely restoring it from the archive will not work. However, since it was closed the first time due to no volunteer being willing to take it the same thing is very likely to happen again. You might get better response from a request for comments, but whatever you do probably needs to focus on and very clearly identify a small number of very specific disputed edits. Generalized complaints about entire articles, NPOV, or other general matters often do not get much assistance. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks i will ask some administrators to assist.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion that may be of interest

Editors who work in dispute resolution may be interested in the RfC about RfC/U at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Clarification of the rules. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions review

(This is a repeat of an earlier notice.) Since March 2013, various individual members of the Arbitration Committee have been reviewing the existing Discretionary sanctions process, with a view to (i) simplifying its operation and (ii) updating its procedures to reflect various clarification and amendment requests. An updated draft of the procedure is available for scrutiny and discussion here. AGK [•] 16:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this.

Referrals to Mediation Committee redux

There is a policy change being voted upon by the members of the Mediation Committee here which, if it passes, will allow that committee to consider taking cases which have not first passed through some other form of dispute resolution, though MedCom will retain a extensive talk page discussion prerequisite as we have here at DRN. The proposal allows the committee to decline cases which they feel would benefit from DR at a lower level. If the proposal does pass, we here at DRN should probably reconsider making quick referrals of complex or multiparty matters to MedCom, rather than spending substantial time on them here. What "quick referrals" means needs to be worked out, but in keeping with the founding purposes of DRN I think that it ought to include the possibility of immediate referral without any attempt at DR here (and perhaps even going so far as having a DRN volunteer list it at MedCom). I do not, however, believe that such "bare" referrals should be mandatory upon DRN volunteers. Thoughts? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think this is a good idea, but with some reservations. I think that DRN or another process should act as a sorter of cases, and quickly refer disputes to MedCom, rather than make MedCom a free-for-all. It could see an influx of frivolous cases at MedCom, and I think this should be taken into account. I'd be happy to have a volunteer list disputes at MedCom, but think a referral-type form should be created by MedCom to make it easier for a volunteer. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Remington Model_870#Washington_Navy_Yard_Massacre

The talk page of the filing editor indicates that this user is editing from the Department of Homeland Security. They have also filed an AN/I complaint against an editor involved. The discussion on the article talk page does appear to be little more than incivility accusations from the IP editor against the registered editor being complained about at AN/I. I suggest this request be closed as no extensive discussion and suggest that the IP editor resolve the AN/I before they attempt to file here again. One venue at a time. I would also note that the IP editor may have a COI on the subject making it inappropriate for them to be editing the article in question.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with closing for several reasons. First, there's not been enough Talk page discussion yet. Second, as you mention, nearly all the Talk page discussion that is there isn't actually even on the topic, it's just bickering. Third, the stated goal of the filer is to 'get an outside look' which can be accomplished with a WP:3O or an WP:RFC. Side note, yes the IP is registered to Homeland Security but I can't see how exactly that would constitute a COI for this dispute. Zad68 20:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Possible COI would involve a government agency that may be in direct control of an investigation into a criminal act, a person who is paid to agree with a set talking point etc, and other various possible reasons. Not that they can't edit Wikipedia, just that that department may be in conflict where the subject relates to areas they oversee/or have concern with such as the Washington Navy Yard.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Dispute : Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati

Respected Sir i never with drew from the dispute resolution filed by me. I only mentioned i have no stamina left to bear insults and degrading of the subject. I demand justice Sir. Further instead of giving justice the people involved in the dispute had started Vendetta. All sections of talk page has gone to archives. Further they have started raising new issues against the subject after that dispute, which they them self accepted initially. I invite you to visit the article Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati for same The dispute filed by me was "Talk page of the article "Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati", Talk page of the editors themselves in discussion about the subject of the article, NeilN, Yunshui, Ihardlythinkso, Myself, Subject." I beg you and feel sorry if any language of mine was considered as with drawing of dispute Regards Sarower Sigh Bhati (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

How to file new request?

I'd like to file a request for dispute resolution but i don't understand what to do.Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to add some more info on the problem, when i click the "Request dispute resolution" button i get taken here but it just appears as a blank page. I looked on the talk page and it sound like some javascript is supposed to fire, but its not. I tried turning Twinkle on in preferences-->Gadgets but that didn't seem to make any difference. Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It should be working...check if you have javascript enabled in your browser? Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 10:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope it doesn't work for me. I have javascript enabled. No matter; i've dropped the dispute i was going to post due to lack of time. Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talk) 05:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Notifications

I don't think that the bot is handling notifications properly at the moment. Eg: I got no notification of this or of this but did get notice of this. In addition, should it be part of the process that a general notification is inserted on the article talk page? In part, just in case someone accidentally omits a participant from the list? - Sitush (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Bot not working (or I'm not working)

Hi;

I've taken up the Palestinian War case for teh purpose of resolving the dispute (the one with Ykantor and Pluto2012 as parties). I took it up last night, and, AFAIK, I am still listed as a volunteer in the "active" list. However, the bot hasn't updated the table to show that the case is open and is being attended to by a volunteer. --The Historian (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the bot code hasn't been updated to reflect the new volunteer list. I'll put a stop-gap measure in for now. Steven Zhang (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

the closed DRN request for SearchMothers.com

Hi, I was looking through the DRN list, and noticed that there is one at the bottom (add searchmothers.com to list of social networking websites) which was closed due to lack of witnesses. The username of the person that posted the request was Smatteo, which is presumably the same S.Matteo who is the editor-slash-maybe-owner of SearchMothers.com -- in other words, WP:COI. Looking at the current article, there is one other social-networking-just-for-moms website in the list, presumably a competitor of SearchMothers, which is called CafeMom. It has an article, which is marked as written-like-an-advert, but the cites are valid albeit old 2008/2009 stuff, plus some notable-I-guess recent awards -- couple WSJ, one NYT, couple ABC (mostly because one of the CafeMom founders used to be on Melrose Place television series methinks). So, my question is, Smatteo is redlinked, which means when I visited their page, I got nada. How do I contact them, to ask if they have any valid cites, and explain WP:COI to them? Please contact me via my talkpage, in case I forget to check back here. Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot to paste the COI evidence.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

While this issue should be addressed, as it says at the top of this page this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the dispute resolution noticeboard page. Because the above question does not involve improvements to the DRN page, we cannot address it here. I believe that the correct place to ask your question is at WP:COIN. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Any hope for this mess?

do any of the regulars here want to weigh in on whether they think there is any possibility that bringing this mess Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Discussion:_theory_.2F_hypothesis_.2F_concept here under a third party would be able to bring a resolution? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

MedCom policy change and what it means for DRN

The Mediation Committee (of which I am a member, but I am not speaking here as their spokesperson) has in the past only accepted cases for formal mediation which have previously undergone some lower level of dispute resolution at Third Opinion or here at DRN. They have in the last few days amended that policy to eliminate the prior-DR requirement, but to only require extensive article talk page discussion. They have also added a process by which the committee can decline to hear such cases and refer them back to 3O or DRN if they believe lower-level DR would be beneficial before being handled at MedCom. They also still have a policy which will allow cases to be rejected there if a majority of the disputants do not agree to mediation or if major viewpoints among the disputants will not be represented in the mediation.

What does this mean for DRN? In my opinion, all DRN volunteers should give serious consideration to closing cases and quickly referring them to MedCom if they are particularly complex (either in topic or in number of participants) and if enough disputants weigh in here that it looks like the case would be accepted by MedCom, but let me quickly add that this should always be a discretionary decision left up to the individual volunteer who reviews a pending case here. What does "quickly" mean? It can mean referring a case before any substantial action is taken by a volunteer here, but it can also mean referring a case after the discussion here has started and it becomes apparent that more serious help is needed than the volunteer wishes to give or feels is appropriate here. What does "refer" mean? Again, I think that this should be left up to the individual volunteer, but it can mean either just making a recommendation to the disputants at the time of closing or can even mean filing the case as MedCom on behalf of the disputants. In either case, should you ask the disputants whether or not they want to close up shop here and move on to mediation? Not necessarily, but probably in most cases, depending on what's best for that particular dispute and for the encyclopedia.

That's my two cents and what I'm going to do. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I largely agree. I haven't had time to comment at MedCom talk yet (my fridge broke down this evening, yay) but I think this change means it's not necessary for us to exhaust a dispute before sending it to MedCom, and if it's best, we can just quickly refer it there. I'll comment a bit more later when I don't have so much on my plate :) Steven Zhang (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed change

Proposal by AGK [cross-posted on the MedCom Policy talk page here]: If the DRN volunteer's assessment is that no further assistance is possible and formal mediation would be a more suitable method of DR, the dispute could be referred directly to [the Mediation Committee] under the referrals system without violating the terms of the referral system. This could happen immediately after the dispute is brought to DRN, or after some attempt is made at actually resolving the dispute. The language of the terms of the referral system is deliberately vague. AGK [•] 09:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

If there is no disagreement, I suggest that we amend the instructions in the Welcome to DRN box by adding the following after the first paragraph:

"If the DRN volunteer concludes that no further assistance is possible and that formal mediation would be a more suitable method of dispute resolution, the dispute may be referred directly to the Mediation Committee. This referral may happen immediately after the dispute is brought to DRN, or after an initial attempt has been made to resolve the dispute."

How does that sound? Any suggested tweaks? Anything else that needs to be amended? Any concerns? Please comment by midnight UTC, October 19, 2013. Sunray (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Does this include a step where you talk it over with the disputants? I would be a bit taken aback if I filed a case at DRN and suddenly found that it was sent to medcom without anyone asking me. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they would have to sign as agreeing to the mediation. Your question gets at just how the referral would be made. It seems to me that they would need to be contacted and then there would have to be a process to move the information in the DRN request over to Requests for Mediation. Would someone familiar with the technical aspects be able to make some suggestions? Sunray (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if a technical method would need to be implemented. We could either copy the whole lot over to a MedCom page, or close the thread off here and point back to it at the MedCom page. The proposed wording is OK, I might tweak it a bit when I add it to the instructions. Steven Zhang (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

That would certainly work. To my mind, the simpler the process, the better. Copy and paste is a proven technology :) Sunray (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Backlog at DRN

Hi all,

The backlog at DRN has become rather severe. We really need to clear this backlog before we can accept more cases. To this effect, I'm temporarily going to remove the add new request button from the header, instead pointing folk to MedCom (which has changed their policy recently to allow cases be filed there without prior DR). I'm also going to work on some recognition and rewards. I think at times DR is a thankless task and want to the hard work everyone does more rewarding. @TransporterMan:, fyi. Steven Zhang (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Alas, I am still battling health issues, but I will help as soon as I am able. --22:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Taking a slightly more active role in trying to get these silly threads in the coffins. I trust there's no objection to me poking these really old threads that appear stale. Hasteur (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

With recent changes to Med com, hopefully this will all iron out in time. While I have removed my name as a volunteer, I still see myself as a DR/N member in spirit and I am actually very thankful to see Hasteur reduce the backlog of the more ridiculous disputes.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello all, I've been in the process of moving countries recently so haven't been active. I hope to be able to start devoting some more time to here again sooner rather than later. Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Now that we're down to 6 open threads (with annother one closing soon-ish), can we agree that it's time to make DRN more welcoming again? Hasteur (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If you mean by removing the backlog template — done (and thanks for the hard work, too). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Banging the trash can lids together

Perhaps it's me, but I'm seeing very little involvement from the large list of DRN volunteers. Are volunteers still interested in helping resolve disputes or is it time to retire the board and refer disputes elsewhere? Hasteur (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Being as I'm relatively new to this, I'll say the idea of getting involved can be a bit intimidating, especially as often the discussions I'm seeing come up revolve around subject matter that I know little about. I wonder whether there could be some sort of mentorship option where an experienced DRN volunteer works with those who are still new to DRN from an administration viewpoint. In any case, I definitely don't think in a general sense that referring DRN matters elsewhere would improve anything, though I might revise that opinion based on where we might refer them. DonIago (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I once volunteered to resolve a dispute; but I failed to figure out how to do all the initial bureaucracy, and gave up. I think that bringing the arguing parties to a consensus would have been easy, compared to finding my way through the bureaucracy. So yes, mentorship might be a good idea. Maproom (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this might be a good idea. I'm also working on creating some badges, to create a bit of recognition for doing work at DRN. I really appreciate the hard work that you've been doing recently, Hasteur. We have slow periods from time to time but this is quite a lull. I don't think retiring DRN is a good idea though. I think we should put our heads together and work through things. Steven Zhang (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not you Hasteur. There is less involvement here than ever before and I can only speak for myself for the reasons I no longer volunteer my time here. For one, Doniago is correct when they say: "I'll say the idea of getting involved can be a bit intimidating, especially as often the discussions I'm seeing come up revolve around subject matter that I know little about" People feel that if they don't know the subject they shouldn't even bother...that is a terrible way to think, but is the main way that I see the discussions go. That may work, but my experience is, when you revolve to much around the subject and not resolution the discussions get bogged down to minutia of the subject itself and tend to wander away from the goal of resolving the dispute. Since we deal with content issues here many feel if hey don't understand the subject matter they should stay out of the discussion. That is far from true. Since our goal as volunteers is to guide the participants to a resolution, many times one need only read through the discussion to see where and what the dispute centers on. It really doesn't take much to understand the issues at hand only and not worry about being knowledgeable about the subject in general. The board has a great deal of other issues, but they are still being looked at. Some tweeks have been made and discussions that changed one policy that allows editors to go straight to Med Com and just skip this board.

DR/N is not the only board to use any editor who wishes to be a volunteer, but we may have tried to be more than we really are. I mean no disrespect to Steven Zhang, but it seems that the biggest hurdle is a format that attracts volunteers and not one that results in chasing them off with conflicts that arise from the board itself, regardless of the merits of such disputes. I no longer volunteer here only because the board lacks real support from administration. Far too often I see participants challenge the volunteers. To be honest I can't help but wonder if this should simple become a subpage of AN/I and be handled within that exact same formatting and frame work. I don't think that will happen or if that is even a suggestion that itself would work...just that it seems to be the formatting of all the other boards. I truly think it is time to think about this becoming more like RS/N, AN/I etc. Just do away with everything and go back to a simple discussion board where editors just start new threads and anyone can help form a consensus. I don't know if that will gain more attention from others, but it seems to be what works, and this seems to be what is not working. How long before we acknowledge that?--Mark Miller (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting that you say that, since one reason why I took more of an interest in DRN was that I filed a conduct-related ANI case, but it seemed as though the minute an admin noticed that there was anything related to article content involved they pushed me off to here, even though the content-related issues had nothing to do with why I'd approached ANI. The issue wasn't my opposition's policy-based arguments or such, the issue was that they were repeatedly being incivil and insisted on taking things I said out of context and nobody would get involved and tell them they were out of line. In the end I came here, they didn't participate in the filing, and a week later (or less) I was back there and all I'd gained was the DRN filing as additional evidence of their issues.

Making DRN a subpage of ANI sounds good in theory, but it only works if the admins are willing to get involved; otherwise DRN will probably be even less effective than some might argue it already is...and I guess that's one question that concerns me...does DRN ultimately resolve disputes, or does it only serve as a means of establishing that people tried to resolve a dispute and failed? For the amount of work and potential stress that goes into a DRN case it can be a bit disappointing if there's not even a binding (or at least strong) resolution to come from one's efforts.

Regarding disputants challenging volunteers, maybe we need to make it (more) clear that the volunteers are volunteers, that they're plain vanilla editors the same as everyone else, and that we're here to offer advice and guidance, not lay down the law (since we can't in any case). I guess the flip side of that is that volunteers need to ensure they don't rise to the bait and should be willing to acknowledge the challengers without rising to any bait (i.e. "You're welcome to disagree with me, but as a Dispute Resolution volunteer this is my recommendation. If you don't feel this is satisfactory, options include...") DonIago (talk) 06:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

That'll probably just get this board nominated for deletion again like the last time such happened with an admin who didn't like that we don't allow personal attacks and will collapse or remove the offending comments. I actually believe you are correct that admin would never agree to make this a subpage of theirs to oversee. I tend to think that a good portion of admin feel they have enough duties and responsibility, and I would have to agree.

We really shot ourselves in the foot with that "Non-binding" stuff. LOL! Seriously, it makes our board weaker than any other board where consensus of editors is the decision. Here we just say, spend a weak or two arguing, debating, digging through references and preparing further references and then when a resolution is made...ah heck, just forget it. We aren't serious. Do what you want, we can't stop you. And we can't because we have announced to the project that we don't work by he consensus of editors. Period. A talk page discussion has more weight than DR/N.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to especially agree or disagree, but I guess my feeling is that DRN essentially is where editors come to when 3O either doesn't apply or didn't give editors the resolution they were hoping for...but at the same time, DRN has no more actual authority than 3O...and you can bet I got challenged when I offered a 3O that one of the involved editors didn't care for. I was perfectly willing to say, "One of the involved editors asked for a third opinion, so here it is. If you don't like it, that's fine, but at least the dispute's moving along." In short I guess one of the problems may be that coming here is no guarantee that a problem will be solved in any manner, and it's possible that volunteers aren't keen to get their hands dirty in a scenario where they may be open to a world of criticism if things go wrong but aren't especially likely to be recognized when things go right. I dunno, it's late here and I may just be rambling... DonIago (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The number of volunteers at any time comes and goes. There are never very many (the same is true at 3O, by the way). If you'll look at the content boards which preceded this one, the Content Noticeboard and MedCab, there was no more participation by volunteers there than there is here. Since the Wikipedia community has consistently rejected, on several different occasions, content arbitration (i.e. giving anyone the right to make binding decisions on content), the most that can be done is what is already being done at 3O, DRN, and MedCom: giving advice and guidance from a neutral position or, in other words, some form of mediation. The closest thing the community has to content arbitration is RfC, and that fails more often than it succeeds for the same reason that DRN cases often fail: not enough third party participation. That is always going to be a chronic problem in this encyclopedia based around the Wiki/consensus ideal. The other problem in having enough volunteers here and at the other DR forums is that many people come here who are not particularly content-creation oriented but who want to participate in good faith Wikipedia. Of those folks, I'd say about a third start creating or editing content, about a third just give up and leave Wikipedia, and about a third become (or begin to work on becoming and start helping in admin-like forums such as AFD or ArbCom clerking or SPI clerking) administrators; in all three cases they stop doing DR; only a very small number stay with DR. DRN has a place and purpose. It will never be the be-all-and-end-all because DR can never work except in a minority of cases. I have more to say, but I have to jump off to do some RW stuff. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the main reason we don't work by consensus is that DR/N is a minority opinion and cannot override a larger community consensus and many times (if not most times) the talk page discussion will have a larger pool of the community finding consensus for any given content dispute. Perhaps we are simply over thinking this (certainly I may be) and that the answer is to simply auto-transclude our discussion directly to the article like a GA review. Perhaps the answer is simply to make DR/N a subpage of the actual article in dispute that appears on the talk page of the specific article. This would then make it a community discussion in a manner that would allow some stability to the consensus reached by that discussion. Something to think about possibly.--Mark Miller (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I've thought a lot about the idea of doing DR on the article talk page. It might work if there is also a forum (much like 3O works) to make the request so that the other participants in the dispute don't think that the DR volunteer is just another meatpuppet "accidentally" showing up to join in the ganging-up-upon. How many disputes have been listed here where one of the participants listed honestly says, "Hey, I just joined in there as a neutral editor." Quite a few, in my experience. I've never seen that happen to a volunteer who first gets involved in a dispute through one of the DR forums. That is not to say, however, that I've never seen a volunteer enter as a volunteer and then get caught up in the dispute and become a participant but I've seen that happen far more often at 3O where the opinion is given on the article talk page than I have in those DR forums where the DR is done on a different page. That may be because volunteers at 3O are often less experienced than those who work here at DRN, but I rather think that it is more a hazard of doing it on the article talk page. Though we volunteers have no special authority, at least we're on our home turf when the DR happens at a neutral site. All in all, it works better on a separate page.

Going back to the original discussion, above, let me say this: Look, though I gripe about it, it's no surprise to me that there aren't many DR volunteers. It's hard work, to be done right it requires a large time commitment, and it rarely works. And a lot of people come here with the point of view that our job is to resolve disputes. It's not. It's to build an encyclopedia and the way this encyclopedia works, a stalemate is a perfectly acceptable solution in the grand scheme of things. Stalemate = no consensus and no consensus is fine: if editors cannot reach consensus then the change being discussed shouldn't be made. What we're here to do is to try to get editors to come to consensus if that is possible and if the outcome is not in violation of policy and is in the best interest of the encyclopedia. It's not a tragedy if no one takes a case or if a resolution is not possible because the stalemate that case represents is itself not a tragedy but a wholly-acceptable outcome. That's one of the reasons that a disputant's participation in DR is always voluntary.

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Some responses to specific comments:

• "the discussions I'm seeing come up revolve around subject matter that I know little about" (DonIago) "many times one need only read through the discussion to see where and what the dispute centers on" (Mark Miller) In general, I agree with Mark. There have been cases where I thought my understanding of the subject matter was insufficient, but that's by far the exception rather than the rule (and even in those cases I generally thought that I could probably puzzle it out if I had the time to give it, which I didn't). To me, a bigger problem comes when a dispute turns either on the reliability of offline foreign sources or on what foreign-language sources say.
• "the biggest hurdle is a format that attracts volunteers and not one that results in chasing them off with conflicts that arise from the board itself, regardless of the merits of such disputes. I no longer volunteer here only because the board lacks real support from administration. Far too often I see participants challenge the volunteers." (Mark Miller) Mark, you had a very bad experience in that respect, but I've rarely seen it happen here.
• "this should simply become a subpage of AN/I" (Mark Miller) I don't think that they would allow it because admins are not supposed to become involved with content disputes. It might make them a bit more conscious of the conduct issues which arise here, but would make them vulnerable to accusations that they were trying to manipulate content.
• "I once volunteered to resolve a dispute; but I failed to figure out how to do all the initial bureaucracy, and gave up." (Maproom) I'm not sure which bureaucracy that you're referring to. The most difficult part is handling the automation elements and now that we have coordinators in place, mistakes there ought to be easily corrected. Past that, I'm not at all certain what would be so difficult.
• "Do what you want, we can't stop you. And we can't because we have announced to the project that we don't work by he consensus of editors. Period. A talk page discussion has more weight than DR/N." (Mark Miller) I'm confused by this. Consensus can certainly be formed here and, if so, then it ought to be as binding as consensus formed anywhere else. Heck, unlike 3O, a volunteer's opinion here even "counts" towards consensus. The only reasons it shouldn't be recognized at the article talk page are if all the disputants were not involved here or if the discussion at the talk page continues while the DRN discussion is going on and contradicts it. Copying or transcluding (difficult since we don't use subpages) it over to the talk page isn't a bad idea at all. Have you had consensuses formed here that weren't recognized? "We really shot ourselves in the foot with that 'Non-binding' stuff." (Mark Miller) Are you thinking that affects consensuses made here? If so, nothing could be further from the truth, and all the guidelines say about that is "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." (Emphasis added.) That fairly plainly says that consensus can be formed here.

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

In light of the comments here I'll make more of an effort to review disputes regardless of my knowledge of the underlying subject. DonIago (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it's my mind going but I seem to recall something to the effect that on average, a DRN thread is only supposed to last 7 days. I know I specialized in the sub-field of taking forceful action on DRN disputed that have gone beyond that point, but when DRN threads are sitting 7 days with all the disputant statements in, but no response from DRN volunteers. What's up with that? Hasteur (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

That's enforced by the archiving bot (when it's working), but it's 14 days. After 14 days if any 24-hour period passes in which there's not an edit to the thread, then the bot archives it and thus, at least impliedly, closes it (though it is archived without being closed). You can shorten or lengthen that period by adjusting the date in the <!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] [time], [date] (UTC) --> line at the top of the listing. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Notice of partial withdrawal

Dear all;

It is with great sadness that I must inform you that I have come to the decision that I will have to withdraw - either partially or completely - from DRN, and possibly Wikipedia in its entirety. This is because of having just started University, and the impending deadlines, I therefore have less time than I would like to devote to other projects. It is my intention to only "partially" withdraw, and return in the Summer, to then go into hiatus again the following October - hence the reason why I have changed to become the coordinator for July-August. During my hiatuses, I do not intend to do much more than read, keep up to date with some areas of interest, make small edits and keep up with happenings on my talkpage - I have no intention in getting involved in anything nearly as big as the recent arbitration case on Bradley Manning. I do not think I need go as far as placing "retired" on my userpage, or asking to vanish completely.

My time in this project has been a joy, and I look forward to re-joining you all in the summer, when I assume my role as volunteer coordinator for July-August. Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE

--The Historian (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

a proposal: A "light DRN "

Is it possible to establish a "light DRN" too? It is helpful for cases where the problem is a "petit crime" e.g :

1. do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage. an example Diff page. the deletion reason:blatant pov ; wp-undue. Even if the reason was correct , it should have been rewritten. But it was deleted, and during the last 4 months an important section the is missing. I guess it will take some time before it will be re-written.
2. removing a well supported sentence and replacing it with an unsupported one. an example Diff page.
3. remove a long quote of a respected (by both sides) wp:rs for no reason (I consider "useless" = no reason). an example Diff page.

For this kind of DRN, the volunteer is able to decide quickly and users may start to respect the rules. Ykantor (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It can be done so at present, a volunteer is empowered to address a dispute however they feel is best. If a volunteer feels a dispute is straightforward I'd encourage them to cut to the chase - no need to ponder over it or dilly-dally imo. Steven Zhang (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• You are right but there is a problem that some editors ignore those "petit crimes" , and realize that no one care about it. The "normal" DRN might be rather lengthy, and the other editor may withdraw at any stage, if it become inconvenient for him. Once a "light" DRN will be established, those editors may realise that such problems are quickly dealt with, it might deter them.
• yours If a volunteer feels a dispute is straightforward I'd encourage them to cut . It is a good idea but sometimes the volunteer would not even try to enter a dispute. e.g. At the moment I have listed a DRN concerning a very simple problem: The other user is deleting the references (it is not his first time). In my opinion, the volunteer may cut it short and tell him : do not delete a wp:rs because of such bizarre reasons. However, no one has volunteered yet. I appreciate the volunteers hard work, and suppose that they prefer an easier one rather then being involved in the Arab Israeli conflict. Also, the other editor replies are (in my opinion) long, not to the point, vague and unclear, which leave a wrong impression of a discouraging complicated case. Ykantor (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I try to customize my approach according to the personalities involved. In cases where it is one-against-several and the one is clearly not going to prevail through superior citations, I look at the interactions and history of each editor. If the many are aggressive and I think the one might feel outnumbered and picked on, having me pile on and tell them they are wrong is unlikely to have a positive result. In those cases I ask questions, like "why do you believe that? where did you learn it?" and "have you read WP:V? How do you think it applies to this case?" The goal is to turn him around and show him that we have good reasons for doing things the way we do. Sometimes they just want to know that someone is listening.

In other cases I see the same one-vs-many split, but the many have been calmly explaining things and the one is refusing to listen and becoming aggressive. In cases like that I tend to take a "you are wrong, here is why, And here is what is going to happen if you keep this up" attitude. It all depends on the personalities involved. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It is very interesting to read about these useful methods. I guess those methods suits a "normal" DRN. But if there is a "light" DRN case (e.g. the examples listed at the previous sentences) Then the volunteer might immediately say that it is not according to the rules. (no penalty, no warning, just saying it clearly). I imagine that most of the editors will assimilate the rule. Ykantor (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Where did it go.

I filed a dispute because an FA that I wrote was being chopped up. I had a death in the family and had been off line for several days and I come back to find the dispute removed and alterations to the article have been made. One of the people who wanted to slice and dice the article nominated it for FA removal (or whatever it is called) and that review is going on now, but I do not know what happened in the dispute. Where it is?--Ishtar456 (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It was closed and archived at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 79#Talk:Steamtown.2C U.S.A.. Though it was manually closed, it would have been automatically closed anyway. Disputes are automatically closed by a bot after 2 weeks if there is no edit to the dispute within any 24-hour period. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Ishtar456 asked this question at my talk page where I indicated why it was closed. Hasteur (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

yeah, and finally the question to where it went has been answered, thanks.--Ishtar456 (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, no, I guess it isn't really there after all. So there is no where that I can view what I did not see happen? --Ishtar456 (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hiatus

I've closed out the final 2 disputes I was chairing during the burst of activity. I'm going to be on vacation soon so I'm leaving it to the rest of the volunteers to keep the wheels on the cart. Try to not let disputes get to the "Needs a DRN volunteer attention" state please. Hasteur (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very, very much for the help in getting us caught up. Have a good vacation. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

My health issues have improved somewhat and I will be taking a more active role. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

1948 Palestine war (but the dispute is general and not concerning a specific article)

to Guy Macon: Thank you for the title clarification. However, since my past DRNs has expired unsolved, I try to limit and simplify the DRN purpose, in order to attract a volunteer. Actually, this DRN need no linking to an article, and it can be decided without digging inside articles or talk pages.

I will appreciate it if you advice me how to distance this DRN from the articles, so that a volunteer may hopefully choose this simple DRN. Thanks Ykantor (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

(The above comment is about this edit.)

At times we have a shortage of DRN volunteers, but this isn't a good way to solve that problem. Saying "we have a dispute but I don't want you to look at any of the articles we have edited" is unlikely to help. If indeed your dispute doesn't involve any Wikipedia articles, then it isn't something that DRN can help with.

We are a lot less swamped than we were the last time you were at DRN, and so it is likely that someone will take the case. I cannot myself take the case because of a potential conflict of interest having to do with some engineering work I once did (with US government permission) for the military of a foreign government. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Recusal on 1948 Palestine war

I have recused myself from 1948 Palestine war. If any other volunteer cares to take it up, please do so. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

How do we handle this?

At the Atheism case, the person who filed the case listed themselves as the DR volunteer handling the case. What's the best way to fix this so the bot goes back to listing "no volunteer yet"? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

On the "Got a penny? Leave a penny. Need a penny? Take a penny." basis we now work, people who come here for DR are encouraged to become volunteers. Once someone is listed in the volunteer list, they're going to show up in the status box under the volunteer column even if they're in a dispute as a disputant. Unless someone can figure out a way to make a distinction that the bot can recognize, and then reprogram the bot to do so, I don't see any solution for this. Similarly, I occasionally want to make a comment in a case but not take the case on as the lead volunteer. I created a fully-disclosed alternative account — TransporterMan001 — that I use to do that just so those edits won't show up in the volunteer column. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Flight Deck

I have some serious concerns regarding the way the Flight deck dispute resolution [2] process is being conducted by User:Wiki-Impartial, and am raising it here to get input from others familiar with the process. From the start, it appeared that those involved were suggesting that it was as much a behavioural issue as a content disupute, and unfortunately, despite my repeated efforts there [3][4] to ensure that the discussion remained centred around content matters, Wiki-Impartial seems intent on bringing behavioural issues to the fore - asking for diffs for edit-warring etc. Not only is this contrary to the purpose of this noticeboard, and pointless since no action can be taken here regarding such matters anyway, but it seems certain to inflame the debate, and reduce the possibility of a satisfactory resolution of the content dispute to almost zero. Frankly, I very much doubt that Wiki-Impartial has either the experience or the knowledge of Wikipedia policy to assist in this case, and accordingly I suggest that Wiki-Impartial should withdraw from the discussion, and let someone with more experience take over. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I see that while I was writing the above, User:TransporterMan collapsed/redacted much of the discussion. Hopefully this will resolve the issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Signing with date only?

WP:5TILDES says:

"Typing five tildes will convert to a date stamp with the current date and time, without adding your signature ... when requesting assistance from the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard the requested format for signing is the five tilde signature to slightly help improve neutrality from the responding DRN member."

Is this correct? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

No, only 3O does that. I've fixed it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Coordinator vacancy

Cabe6403 has informed me that he will be unable to take on the December, 2013-January, 2014, coordinator position due to real world obligations. This slot is now open for another volunteer to take, but if no one takes it, I will be happy to carry on for two more months. If you wish to take it, please sign up at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Co-ordinator#December.2C 2013-January.2C 2014 — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC) (current coordinator)

I've taken the December/January spot. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Help!

A person, believed to be Livelikemusic had been redirecting Sorry I'm Late (Cher Lloyd album) to the main Cher Lloyd page. I don't get why he wants to do that, as next time we still need to keep that page when Lloyd comes up with a new album. I told that user to stop, but then he/she after that wrote on my talk page to tell me to stop and purposely deleted 2 of my photos which I had uploaded to Wikipedia when I did say where the photo is from, I did add tags, etc. I just find this user annoying. Can someone help me? Thanks. --218.186.153.21 (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC) My real user is User:Nahnah4 (talk), but now I am using it as an IP address as I cannot log in into Wikipedia using this computer. Thanks!

The page is question fails WP:ALBUMS and its notability requires, as I've tried explaining to this user, who seems to want to ignore Wiki policies. One source does not a page make. No source given for a track list. And per ALBUMS, a track list, chart history and/or album cover is needed for a page to reach notability guidelines, with proper and adequate sourcing. As for the photos, both were fanmade photos made by fans, and not official from the record company. And both failed the image guidelines and fair use policies. And to simply find one annoying is not a reason to simply ask for help. I am helping keep Wikipedia following their own policies and enforcing them. It is this user unwilling to co-operate and learn how Wikipedia works. Instead, they are following their own agenda and acting by making fancruft edits. And to make note, this user is considering becoming a sockpuppet should their name ever be blocked from the site, which is once again viewed upon as wrong per Wiki policy. Also, asking to have a user blocked for following policy and having non-official images deleted from Wikipedia is not a blockable offense. My edits are not in anyway a personal attack. I'm sure this user is assuming good faith in their edits, no matter how wrong they may be currently. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello to both of you. User:Livelikemusic has blanked the page and made a redirect, which is permitted according to WP:BLAR. However the guideline also says that if any editor (such as User:Nahnah4) objects to the blank/redirect then the article should be reinstated and taken to WP:AfD for a community discussion and consensus about whether it should be kept, merged, redirected or deleted. That said, this talk page is not the appropriate venue for this discussion. So if you would like to continue this discussion please start a thread on the article talk page rather than here. If you'd like me to participate in that new discussion (or need assistance with un-redirect, AfD filing etc.) then you can ping me on my user talk page and I'll try to help in whatever way I can. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Australian team discussion

Could another volunteer take a look at this one? I don't think the current issues are appropriate to address at DRN; they involve establishing naming conventions and the like. Additionally, an editor has expressed concern about a comment I made earlier; while I disagree with their views on the comment, it would probably be more appropriate for someone else to close this. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 12:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The case has been closed by MrScorch6200. Nice teamwork folks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Bob Huff dispute and COI editing

I do not know what our guidelines say about this situation or if there is any particular reason to be concerned but, I feel it should at least be mentioned that a recent request on the board was brought here by an editor who has declared their paid advocacy editing as well as being the meat puppet of the Senator himself. In the actual dispute, the editor admits he was filing this request on behalf of the senator. I feel that, should the request come back to this board, it be declined for the reasoning that it puts the subject at an un-fair advantage to have his paid communications director placing requests on this board for them. I would also like to propose that some guideline be added to counter the growing situation of paid, advocacy, meat puppets attempting to edit Wikipedia and use our noticeboard in a manner I feel is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Thoughts?--Mark Miller (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more serious I see the issue. If we allow a paid representative to open a DR request, I think we are throwing the doors open for paid legal representatives to literally "lawyer up" on this noticeboard. This really needs to be addressed.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is my thinking; if we forbid any sort of COI editor from declaring his COI and asking for help, we will simply get stealth COI editors who don't declare their COI. Making something against the rules does not necessarily mean that you will get less of it. See Prohibition in the United States#Effects of Prohibition. In my opinion, if they follow the advice at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide#Advice we should welcome them with open arms. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I think, though I'm open to further discussion, that we should follow the larger community on this. Two of the three current proposals for limiting paid COI editing have failed and the third appears to be moribund. If we're going to encourage COI editors to propose their edits on talk pages and discuss them there (or require them to do so, should the remaining proposal pass), rather than make them themselves in mainspace, then to deny them access to DR seems counterproductive. Short of just prohibiting them from being editors at all (and I don't see how that would work without requiring all editors to disclose their RW identities), doing something which would discourage them from working their edits out on the talk page would seem to me to just cause more surreptitious mainspace editing. I certainly agree with the frustration, however. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This noticeboard's instructions say, "Comment on the contributions not the contributor." The WP:COIN instructions say, "For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy." So should the process be:

1. Determine if the edit is a COIN edit on the COI noticeboard.
2. If it determined that it is not, a DRN case can be opened and references to COI should not appear.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

My approach tends to be inclusive rather than defensive. If someone comes to the project and wants to work within the system and is willing to follow applicable procedures and guidelines and proceed in a good faith manner, than we should welcome them. And as others have stated, in a content forum, like we have here at DRN, we focus on the edits (content) not on the editor (behavior or real life attributes).-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems a little counter productive but a lot of what the editors say makes sense.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

In looking at this more, I have a couple of question from the above discussion.

• First, when we do have a clear case of disclosed COI that appears on the actual DR/N filing as basically "Hi my name is editor X and I was asked by my boss to request dispute resolution over content on their Wikipedia page." Do we feel this as an acceptable case to take here?
• If there has been no COI/N report made and we can clearly see that editor X has disclosed the information on the article talk page or his own talk page, and this is an ongoing part of the dispute, would that request best be referred to the COI noticeboard before being taken here? This would be like requiring extensive discussion. We would want to be sure the COI was addressed first. So, for example, if the COI editor has been following all of our current standards and procedures and their COI itself is not part of the dispute or found to not be an issue by an extensive discussion (as has actually happened with our BP articles) then the editor should be allowed to file a request?

Since we actually do have an editor that comes to mind that fits the above, is it safe to say that DR/N should be made as available to them _{(COI editors involved in a strictly content related dispute that has not directly edited the article and COI referral shows no editing issue)} as it would be to any other editor?

• Or...is all of the above too much to expect this board to deal with and not see COI as an issue itself for opening a request, and just allow COI to be part of the DR/N discussion?--Mark Miller (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The last of the three COI policy change proposals has now failed. Until the larger community decides to move away from its existing COI policy, I think that we should continue to regard COI as a conduct matter outside the purview of DRN (or of content DR of any kind). We have an established practice of closing listings, under the pending in another forum provision, which includes disputes pending at conduct resolution forums. Anyone who sees a listing here in which they believe that a COI issue exists of such magnitude that it needs a trip to ANI or maybe even COIN is free to list it there and note here that it's pending there and ought to be closed here, or even just close it here if appropriate for them to do so. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi all

Hey all,

Just a quick hello - life has been hectic lately but I wanted to thank everyone for their hard work over the last few months in keeping DRN going strong. My time should hopefully become a bit freer in the coming month so I'll be around a little bit more. Everyone have a great Christmas :) Steven Zhang (talk) 13:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Steve, it will be good to have you back. Happy new year! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Am I in trouble?

Um am I for the Santa and account thing? WWEUndertakerfan (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No, you are not in trouble. There is an ongoing discussion on the article talk page. Please continue discussion there. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Moderator Needed

This discussion Criticisms of Relativity is being marked by the bot as Open Discussion, but there has been no discussion and the two participants are eagerly awaiting a moderator. Any volunteers?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Coordinator duties

@TransporterMan: Hi, at the top of the DRN page it says one of the coordinator's duties is to collect the monthly metrics. Can you clue me in on this? Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I don't know what Steve Zhang meant by that. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. @Steven Zhang: do you have any info on this topic? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure do, @Keithbob:. Take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute_Resolution_Improvement_Project/Activity_analysis for the analysis I did when I was a fellow, I'd suggest something similar be done each month at DRN to see how we're tracking along. Steven Zhang (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I've written a guide - Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Co-ordinator/Analysis guide - hope that helps :) Steven Zhang (talk) 07:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I take a look at that at month end and see what I can do to fulfill that duty. Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Backlog

There are currently three disputes without moderators, and I am currently involved in three or four, so I'm backed up. Are there any volunteers? --MrScorch6200 (t c) 19:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm an involved party in one of the existing disputes...I'm not sure whether it would look awkward if I was actively involved in moderating another at that point. Just sayin'. Anyway, as I noted, the underlying issues re Ranveer Singh are being discussed elsewhere...and in fact there's an RFC on the subject now...so that one could probably be bumped to something along the lines of "Pending Outcome of RFC". Sorry, I'm kind of new at this... DonIago (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You aren't a moderator? --MrScorch6200 (t c) 20:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I listed myself as a volunteer after TransporterMan put me up to it, but I haven't actively moderated any cases yet, and I'd probably want some hand-holding for that (which I know conflicts with my typically brash manner of speaking, ha). As evidenced at Ranveer Singh though, I'm not above (below?) offering my two cents where I think it can help move things along. DonIago (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see your name on the list.... but good luck in the dispute. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 20:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that there's anything to do. It doesn't appear to me that O'Toole, Brownlee, or Singh are ripe for opening as all are missing opening comments from participants. Moreover, I'm tempted to close Singh due to the RfC, but due to CONLIMITED I'm not sure that it has any weight except as an opinion poll of the members of the project where it's pending; it might, nonetheless, give everyone a chance to work out a solution. Brownlee is probably going to fail, since the other editor has been given notice and has edited since it was posted and has not responded. O'Toole appears to have agreement on a solution between the three people who have weighed in so far and their primary opponents are IP editors who have not yet joined in. I'll ask a clarifying question at O'Toole to see where we are. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I was reviewing the Volunteer guidelines, and found myself wondering what we're supposed to do, if anything, if involved parties aren't commenting but also aren't necessarily essential to the case. Singh is the one that jumps out at me, as, if left to my own devices, I'd open the case and ask whether the parties who have expressed an interest are willing to consent to abide by the outcome of the RFC. Given that I started the discussion that ultimately spawned the RFC, I'd also be relatively comfortable moderating that particular discussion...and feel a bit of responsibility.

In any case, if there's five involved parties and four of them have spoken up while the fifth isn't saying anything but is only a minority party, I would imagine it would frustrate all parties for the case to be stuck in limbo. DonIago (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Ultimately the question is whether the missing parties are going to prevent a final resolution to the dispute. If they're just drive-by commenters or folks who have only a mainspace edit or two but who haven't joined in the talk page discussion, you can usually go forward without them without much risk; the other extreme is the party who has been very active in the discussion and is still continuing to be active at talk pages, but who hasn't weighed in at DRN: going forward without that party is a waste of time. (All this presumes that they have been properly notified, either manually or by the listing bot; be sure to check.) Some volunteers drop a message on an absent editor's talk page before closing a listing for nonparticipation even if they have been properly notified, but I'm not enthusiastic about that idea. It usually doesn't work and if they're not actively continuing the dispute then I'm concerned that it may revive a dispute that has died, or is dying, away. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

If I'm reading you correctly then, perhaps the Volunteer guidelines should be modified to reflect the fact that cases can be opened without all involved parties filing summaries first, but the considerations you noted above should be taken into account?

Also, I guess I'm asking then, do you think it would be reasonable for me to open the Singh case at least to ask whether all parties would be comfortable with taking the related RFC as an indication of how the dispute should be resolved? DonIago (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it really comes down to our discretion. If we require everyone to make an opening statement first without exception, it opens us up to stonewalling, but if we push through with only half of the participants, we may get a resolution that won't stick. I don't think we should come up with a specific criteria or formula, just add some advice to the volunteers page suggesting ways to approach those situations. Steven Zhang (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree it comes down to the discretion of the moderator and/or coordinator. But it would be good to have some points (such as those described by T-man) on the volunteers page as Steven has mentioned.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Status update on backlog

• Angus Deayton—User:MrScorch6200 is the moderator and seems to be winding down and it may close soon.
• 5:2 Diet—Winding down. Involved parties say they have only have a few words left to find agreement on.
  • Criticisms of the Theory of Relativity – All parties present but still waiting for a moderator --Help!!
• Criticism of Jainism— Closed, no interest from most of the involved parties.
• Ranveer Singh—Closed after two parties failed to participate and 4 days of no participation by the involved parties.
• Logan’s Run – Closed as resolved.
• Devyani Khobragade incident --Currently being moderated by MrScorch6200.
  • Ghassanids - Both participants have given opening statements and await a moderator. Help!
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)