Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Reflist

Since we're talking to Earwig, I just thought of something: @The Earwig: Since the bot is always parsing through the page, would it be overly complicated to have it add a section like this at the very end (i.e. just before the next == tag or the end of the page):

===References===
{{reflist-talk|close=1}}

to the end of any listing in which <ref[...]> appears? People add ref's to their comments all the time and they don't show up. This would automatically do so. There's always the possibility, of course, that they'll add their own reflist or reflist-talk tag, so the bot would need to take that into consideration. @Everyone: If Earwig says it's possible, does the community think it's worthwhile? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems good to me. Steven Zhang (talk) 06:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Should be doable, yes. — Earwig ^talk 15:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes its a good idea. Sources are the basis of any content discussion and I often request them from the participants.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a great idea and has my full support. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 17:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggested improvement

I would like to suggest that the DRN form include a request for a link to the place where the issue has been discussed. Presently they are asked: have you discussed this? They always say [yes] but sometimes the discussion is hard to locate as it may be buried amongst other discussions on the talk page or it may have taken place on a project page etc. This searching around for prior discussion wastes the time of the coordinator and moderators who need to verify that significant discussion has taken place before proceeding. Can we make a request for a link to the prior discussion as part of the filing form/process? Comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I definitely agree. The dispute can be discussed at many places but we usually only look at the article talk and the editor's talk. Has my full support. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 18:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Tech question

Sometimes the bot will not change a case's status to OPEN even though there is active discussion. Instead the bot maintains the NEEDS ATTENTION status. When I change the status manually to OPEN the bot changes it back to NEEDS ATTENTION. Any suggestions? Solutions? Do I need to by the bot a beer? or bring it some flowers or something? Why does he/she hate me so? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Keithbob, it's probably best to contact the bot's operator, The Earwig. His user page says to contact him at wikipedia.earwig@gmail.com, however a quick talk page post will probably get noticed faster. I have also noticed this probably a week or so ago. I hope there is a solution and I'll see you around. Cheers! --MrScorch6200 (t c) 05:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. The definition of the "needassist" status is that the case has been open for over a week or there have been no edits from DRN volunteers since the addition of 15 kB of case text. This was decided by User:Steven Zhang, who commissioned me to create the bot. So the question now becomes whether the bot is ignoring these rules (which is a bug) or these rules are problematic (which we'll need to decide as a community). — Earwig ^talk 15:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:The Earwig, Thanks for the response. I think its good to have the 'needs attention' status for threads with no posts for X number of days. But I think its a bug problem right now, because last week I had two very active cases with daily posting by at least one party and the entire time they were in process (about one week) the status was listed as 'needs attention'. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you give a link to some diffs? I'll take a look. — Earwig ^talk 05:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is a recent one. I am the mod of that case and discussion has been opened (just look) for a few days now. I changed the case status back to "open"; I will notify you if EarwigBot changes it back. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 01:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

@The Earwig: EarwigBot just changed it back. ([1]). --MrScorch6200 (t c) 01:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The case appears to have been opened on the 6th, which was more than a week ago, hence why it marks it as 'needassist'. — Earwig ^talk 08:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that the bot marks an open discussion as OPEN but then if its still open after a week it changes the status to NEED ASSIST? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

@The Earwig: I have the same question as Keithbob. If that is by design it needs to be changed. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 16:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes! I just said this a few posts above: The definition of the "needassist" status is that the case has been open for over a week or there have been no edits from DRN volunteers since the addition of 15 kB of case text. — Earwig ^talk 21:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Why would a case be marked as 'needassist' if there is someone assisting? That really doesn't make sense. I'm pretty sure even regulars here thought that meant a mod hadn't reviewed or opened the case for discussion. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 22:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I've never been certain how that works, either, but it might make some degree of sense in light of the two-week do not archive clock that's running (albeit not much sense if there's active discussion going on). Hint: Like that pesky "Check Engine" light that sometimes shows up on your auto dashboard it can be easily fixed with a strip of black electrician's tape. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC) (TransporterMan: enthusiastically subverting Steve Zhang's good ideas since 2011 )

Well, I hope you're not a mechanic, but since you aren't certain I'd like to know from Earwig or Zhang if this is by design. Hell, maybe you'd be that kind of mechanic that takes a Camaro out for a spin and wrecks it (know what I'm talking about? & I hope you have good insurance!) Anyway, if this is by design it should be changed.

P.S. Since we're already on the subject, I also think 'open' should be changed to 'active discussion'. Note: See below --MrScorch6200 (t c) 01:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I second the motion to change 'open' to 'active discussion'. Note: Moved below -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

(←) Look, I just do what's requested of me. It used to be that there was a special "review" status for when the case was older than a certain period of time and "needs assistance" was only used if a volunteer hadn't looked at it in a while. I was told to merge them into one, which I did. Are we changing the behavior again? — Earwig ^talk 03:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, we need to come to a firm consensus about what we want before asking Earwig to make any changes. This is complicated by the fact that the "we" in the preceding sentence includes Earwig, but it just means that he has two wear two hats; his interested-editor-discussing-what-we-want-to-do hat and his person-who-has-final-approval-of-and-actually-implements-the-decision hat. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Active discussion I think is good and makes more logical sense, as disputes that are inactive are still open. Fully support the change. Steven Zhang (talk) 06:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

With regards to the "need assist" status, we could change the criteria to "has been open for a week AND a volunteer hasn't commented on it in the last day (when a volunteer does comment on it, the status would be changed back to ACTIVE) OR has been open for a week and has had 15k text added since a volunteer commented (e.g Open for 7 days, a volunteer commented 12 hours ago but since then the participants have gone back and forward, written mountains of text so it needs a volunteer to keep it under control). We could perhaps add an "old" status, when the dispute is open more than 10 days (or was filed by TransporterMan, in which case it would immediately be tagged as "old" :P) - Earwig, how doable is that? Steven Zhang (talk) 06:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Technically doable but too complicated, I think. We have "new", "active", "resolved", "failed", and "closed", which are all fine. How about just two more: "stale", for discussions not touched by anyone in two days (as it currently is), and "needs volunteer assistance", for discussions not touched by a volunteer in the same period. Gets rid of the 15kB check, which is unreliable, confusing, and not necessarily a sign that a volunteer is needed. Also removes the check for purely old discussions, since they're sorted by age anyway and that alone doesn't seem like a reason to draw attention to a discussion. — Earwig ^talk 16:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Earwig, I want to thank you for work on the tech end of things. The automation that you have implemented so far is a great step forward and very helpful. I do think it needs a bit of tweaking and I fully understand that you are just the implementer and not the decision maker. With that said, I like the changes you've suggested in your post above to further refine the efficiency of the system. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: I see there is a request in the status mark up that says "please don't modify". I wasn't aware of this before and I changed a few today for cases I closed. But in future I will obey this request to leave them alone. Meanwhile should I change them back?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I think what you're looking at is a notice regarding the case ID (which is used internally by the bot and changing it will confuse it). Changing the case status is fine except when you change it to something the bot doesn't like (e.g. to open when the case is too old and should be marked as "needassist"), which is why it changes it back. As an aide, removing the logic that checks for cases being a certain number of days old (as both of us have mentioned at different points) should basically get rid of the bot's tendency to modify case statuses against volunteers' wishes. — Earwig ^talk 00:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Please put cases on separate subpages

My main grievance with the current practice is watchlist noise and more scrolling/clicks to get to one's case. I don't see any drawbacks to subpages, except some work to set it up. Paradoctor (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

We tried subpaging some months back and it was an unmitigated failure. I've slept since then and I don't remember the exact issues, but my recollection was that things weren't getting listed properly on the main page and the status bot wasn't reading the subpages correctly. Or maybe it was that the archiving bot wasn't removing closed cases from the list on the main page. I do know that there was a period in which the only way to figure out whether or not there were any new cases was to capture a daily list of subpages and compare it against the prior day's list to see if something had been added. In any event, the benefit — and there is a clear benefit — didn't come close to justifying the problems which were created. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems to work nicely for AfD, and a few others, IIRC. I might take a look into it. Paradoctor (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Propose change

I propose that the 'open' status of cases be changed to 'active discussion'. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 22:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I second the motion to change 'open' to 'active discussion'.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, makes sense to me! DonIago (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Should be easy to implement and makes sense. — Earwig ^talk 03:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutral. While I'm fine with the present system, I'm fine with the changed language, too. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change 2

Right now we have several open discussions marked as NEED ASSIST and it's difficult to tell them apart from those that have not yet opened and need a moderator. So I propose we:

1. Discontinue the bot's practice of changing OPEN discussions to NEED ASSIST after X number of days.
2. Change NEED ASSIST to read NEEDS MODERATOR instead

• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutral. While I'm fine with the present system, I'm fine with the changed language, too. Though if #1 is done, I'm not sure when #2 will ever happen. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Moderators needed!

At present there are some perceived deficiencies in the way that the bot determines and labels the status of each case. While discussions and work to perfect the bot continues I'm listing here the cases where all participants have given summaries and the case is waiting for a moderator:

1. Criticisms of the theory of relativity Has been waiting a week for a moderator.
2. Ghassanids Ready to go.
3. Chikungunya Newly filed, but ready to go.

All other cases have moderators and are proceeding effectively. Thanks everyone!! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Every so often, someone (usually an administrator) expresses a concern that DRN volunteers might be grabbing power and objects to pretty much any title other than "DRN Volunteer" (I am still trying to get Wikipedia to give me an official title of "Dalek Supreme). Also, if Wikipedia:Moderators/Proposal ever gets revived, there could be confusion. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

As one of the last (public) members of the cabal (There is no cabal. Long live the cabal!) I still prefer the title "Ultimate Grand Honorable Master of the Conspiracy". Pointy-hatted robe suggestions on request. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Coordinator assistance

Keithbob has asked that I fill in for him for the remaining few days of his coordinator shift and before my regular shift begins on February 1 so that he can take a wikibreak. I've gladly agreed to do so, but I may be scarce due to RW matters beginning at about 22:30 UTC today through about 14:00 UTC on January 27. If anyone sees anything coordinatorish that needs doing during that time, don't feel shy about wielding the plowshare. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Moderator needed

A moderator is needed here because the current moderator, Keithbob, is on an indefinite Wikibreak. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 07:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer needed — Puerto Rico

Could someone take the Puerto Rico case? I'm recused on that one. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Joining an ongoing DR

Not sure what the etiquette is here. I came into the Talk:Highland Clearances dispute after the DR was opened, and have gone a few rounds of it before being pointed here. I wasn't a named participant, but since the other party seems to feel I'm in breach of guidelines in some way, I've left some comments here. Apologies if this is not the correct approach! Andrew Gray (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that anyone is free to enter any discussion as long as they conduct themselves in a way that is productive and aids the dispute resolution process.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Mods needed!

We currently have 5 6 cases with no moderators! Can someone join in on at least one case? --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 17:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me second MrScorch's plea. I'm travelling and won't be back in the saddle for another couple of days. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

They seem to all be closed now, but should the need arise I am available for a case or two :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Backlog at 3O

There's quite a backlog at 3O if anyone would care to lend a hand. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I've cut the list way back, no more backlog. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Bot update regarding {{reflist-talk}}

Hi everyone; small update here. I've implemented this (month-old ^sorry) request in EarwigBot. Let me know if it's causing any problems or doesn't seem to be working when it should be. Thanks. — Earwig ^talk 00:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Earwig for your great work!! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks seconded. We really appreciate what you do for us, Earwig! Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

New template intended for DRN volunteers

For your convenience, I created a template (Template:DRN-closednote) that is used to quickly notify users (major parties) of speedy-closes and why on their respective talk pages. I originally created this for personal use, but I figured someone else could use it too. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 23:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! DRN is all about communication in my mind. If we close cases abruptly without warning or explanation it may be a turn off for the participants, especially the filing party. We want editors to feel this is a welcoming place in which disputes can be neutralized or at least moved forward. Often times editors are unfamiliar with DRN's requirements and/or WP's dispute resolution processes in general and make inappropriate filings based on lack of information or understanding. I feel that part of our role here at DRN is to educate these people and aid them in discovering the tools for proper dispute resolution if and when it arises. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I think this is useful if you're not going to give a thorough closing statement at {{DRN archive top|reason=}}, and there are, indeed, occasions on which private communication may be better (just as I did today here). But at the same time, I'm reluctant to get participants used to getting personalized messages on their user talk page (or elsewhere, such as the article talk page) rather than paying attention to the DRN page. I'm afraid that's counterproductive to the way we want DRN to work. Just my two cents. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Both of you have great points. @TransporterMan: I don't see how a message like that is anymore personal that {{DRN-notice}}. Also, I remember reading somewhere on DRN (either in the header or the form itself) that using the request form is optional, though you said it is mandatory (which it should be) on the user's talk page that you linked to above. Shall we find that and correct it? MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 18:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Follow up: it's in the FAQ. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 18:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Not any more, it's not. My preference would be for the manual filing issue to just be silent. Some manual filings are fine (this one would probably have been if I'd caught it earlier, as it was very close to a bot filing and would have been easy to fix, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa), others are not and it ought to be the volunteers' call as to whether to revert or fix. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I made some changes to the template today in an attempt to make it more applicable to a wider range of closes. I also used it to notify an editor as well. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		I want to commend and recognize all of the editors who are active at DRN. Not just the ones in the threads above but all of the many editors I've seen in recent months who have come by to coordinate and administrate discussions and various tasks associated with the smooth functioning of this noticeboard. I'm very impressed with the level of cooperation, civility and good faith present in the comments and actions of all involved here. Thank you for being model Wikipedians! — Keithbob • Talk • 17:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Future archiving issue

I figured that I would raise this issue before it becomes problematic. As you all know, we utilize the auto parameter in the archive box in the header. Currently, we are at 87 archives, but after 100 it stops automatically inserting the links into the archive box (though the bot should continue to archive). The solution seems to be that we'll just have to insert those links manually, but not for a few months. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 19:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Will this be like the new millennium only worse? :-) Just kidding, it's good you've raised this issue. Maybe the more technical amongst us can remedy this before it happens. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha! At least I won't be around in 1,000 years. The way I see it, we could pile the 100 archives into a single page, titled "(prefix) June 27, 2011 - end date", (wow, would that be a lot of copy and pasting), have a few admins delete the current 100 pages and after which Lowercase sigmabot III can recreate them as needed. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Why does it stop after 100? Can it be done like RSN's? Eventually we may need to do what ANI does. (Having said that, I don't know how any of them do it. Heck, I'm not even sure at this moment how my own talk page does it, even though I set it up...) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea. I'll look into it further. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 17:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: Below is the code that RSN uses in their header:

{| class="wikitable" style="float:right;vertical-align:top;" | width="300" style="text-align:center;"| '''Search this noticeboard & archives''' |- |<inputbox> type=fulltext prefix=Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard break=yes width=40 searchbuttonlabel=Search </inputbox><center><hr style="width:95%" /></center> <center><small>{{archive list}}</small></center> |}

And this is what they use on the project page:

{{Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header}}{{User:MiszaBot/config |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |maxarchivesize = 250K |counter = 165 |minthreadstoarchive = 1 |algo = old(5d) |archive = Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d }}

Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 17:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

My knowledge of archiving is also very limited maybe User:Earwig can guide us on how to upgrade the archive system here to accept more pages and KBs.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Question

When we close a case are we allowed to change the status to 'close' despite this warning not to?

DR case status|open !-- Bot Case ID (please don't modify): 1084 --

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Just don't change or remove the stuff in the angle brackets, just change open in the curly brackets to closed, resolved, or failed as appropriate. Replace the do not archive stuff with the DRN archive top tag and don't forget the bottom tag. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Roger that! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Archive tag placement

@Everyone: Please note that the {{DRN archive top}} tag should go on the first line under the {{DR case status}} and {{drn filing editor}} lines, replacing the

<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] xx:xx, xx Xxxxx 20xx (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->

material. That way the filing status and the filing editor's names show up in the archive. There's a bit of overwriting if the editor's name is long, but that doesn't hurt anything. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder T-Man. Mark up is not my strongest skill :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Debian

In the Debian case, the filer made the following comment:

"Refusing to discuss is considered a conduct issue, so there are two threads in the incident noticeboard. I have been repeatedly advised to use content related resolution."

So, in my opinion, this should not be closed as being in discussion elsewhere.

BTW, my health has improved, so I will be able to be more active at DRN. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Guy, and welcome back, glad to hear you are feeling better healthwise :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully the IP has abandoned the prior discussions here and here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Good to have you back and glad you're better, Guy. For me closing a case due to a filing in a conduct forum is always a judgment call, and this is your case, your call. Good luck and best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution process

Hi, I have a question about having a dispute resolution process. Once the case is filed, the parties are named and mediation is agreed to, is the discussion limited to those parties and the mediator? Because in a long-lasting talk page debate that occurred in November and December, at a certain point, new accounts appeared to weigh in on the subject in question and they just as quickly disappeared. Later, one side claimed they had won consensus because of a head count of editors when some of these contributors' participation in the discussion was marginal.

I want to make sure everyone who was a participant in that month-long debate is mentioned as a prospective party to the mediation but I don't think it would be helpful to have newly created accounts appear and take sides. Is my understanding correct or can anyone show up and participate in a mediation once it gets under way?

Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Liz, I'm a regular volunteer here. If I catch the drift of your question, I think that the answer is that the proper parties to a mediation, either here or at some other dispute resolution forum, are those who can resolve the dispute. If new parties are constantly coming and going in the dispute at the article and article talk page, their absence in the mediation can sabotage any consensus which is reached by those who are in the mediation. Indeed, the request for dispute resolution may be declined for that reason. In that situation, your best bet is likely to be a request for comments rather than some form of mediated DR. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a good point Liz and I'm glad you are bringing it up for discussion. It seems you are asking a question about formal mediation of which T-Man is a committee member. My understanding is that formal mediation is a closed system and limited to anyone already involved in the dispute and not open to newcomers. Also, unlike DRN, the outcome of formal mediation is binding. Is that right T-Man? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The outcome is not binding at MEDCOM see MedCom Policy:,

Mediated agreements are not binding. Any agreement achieved through mediation is not permanently binding. If consensus is achieved in a mediation case, the parties are expected by the community to honour the result. However, the consensus does not apply to articles outside the scope of the mediation, nor does it last permanently. Consensus can change.

(Emphasis and links as in original.) But even that much is based on the agreement of the parties to the solution which is worked out there.

While mediation is not binding, mediators are authorised to ask each party to explicitly indicate their consent to the result of the case.

The Mediation Guide goes on to explain:

Formal mediation is as binding as the parties make it. Whilst the mediator will often have the parties sign their agreement to whatever compromises are reached in the course of mediation, this is not an obligating or binding agreement and the parties cannot be punished for later breaking with these compromises. For that reason, all parties are strongly encouraged to only consent to compromises with which they are fully satisfied: it is a waste of time to say one agrees with a compromise when one will most probably decide otherwise three or four months later, and thus drag the dispute back to square one. The community may also hold as culpable a party who agrees to a reasonable mediation solution, then changes their mind and resumes edit warring or arguing repeatedly for their previously preferred state of the article; that would be outwith the committee's control.

Wikipedia has no process by which binding content decisions can be made. As for the closed nature of mediation, MEDCOM is more controlled than DRN, but I cannot imagine a mediator not allowing new parties into the mediation if their presence is needed to achieve a final resolution to the dispute. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Returning to DRN

I have relisted my name as a volunteer for the noticeboard. I will spend some time to review the guide.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, good to have you back, Mark. You've been missed. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This page is for discussing improvements to the Dispute resolution noticeboard page. See WP:DR for instructions on where to discuss this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Very problematic articles and biased users , literally vandalizing systematically an article for Propaganda Greetings , let me start by saying that i know that the title might sound a bit harsh , however i believe what to claim to be absolutely true and even more than that . Let me also point out that i originate from Himara ( The article is about Himara ) . The evidence is so obvious , that it is almost mind blowing how much can someone change a content with BLANK , non existing sources . I am copy pasting exactly a lead paragraph from the article > The region of Himarë is predominantly populated by an ethnic Greek community. Now please check all the sources presented in the lead paragraph . Let us start with source n.1 , which is .... BLANK and non existing . Source n.2 > is an image from a text of a dubious and maybe even non existing book ?! When is this text from , and in what context is the author saying that , furthermore is this book even existing ? Source n.3 > It is .... BLANK and non existing Source n.4 > Maybe the only reasonable source , BUT even that speaks about the contest and the fact that the Albanian goverment DOES NOT recognise it as a minority zone . My problem is not that per se , but the fact that the abusive user Alexikoua has reverted all my legitimate and useful edits . If you go to Himara article , what i did is to change the sentence , to saying > The region of Himara is also populated by an ethnic greek minority < , furthemore i did provide the official election voting of 2013 where it was demonstrated that the greek minority party did take ONLY 25 % , with the remaining population voting for albanian parties , so i added after this sentence > This could help indentify the proportion of the greek speaking community < I know that election results should not be in the lead paragraph . But given the fact that the original abusive and NON correct statement is there , i just gave another clue to the whole story . This is just the tip of the iceberg , if you go to the talk page you will see that User Alexikoua is having muliple disputes with countless other persons about this in a period of 4 or even more years . Furthemore i would like you to check if user Pinkbeast is a Sock puppet account of user alexikoua . The article is greatly distorted and used for propagandistic purposes . Furthemore they have REVERTET ALL OF MY EDITS , so i have no other choice than contacting someone superior . Regards , Bonender (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Gonna be scarce for a few days

I'm going to be traveling and probably mostly to altogether unavailable from about 22:00 UTC on Thursday, March 20, until about 13:00 UTC on Monday, March 24, +/- 12 hours in each case. Please coordinate amongst yourselves, no wild parties or keggers, and no bad reports from the neighbors when I return. Remember that the cabal is watching. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Can I have girls in my room? Have a great mini-vacation!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Unclear how to "ask a volunteer"

"If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you." Awesome! However, the link points to a page listing volunteers, but the page says it's just a "social" page. Are you supposed to just pick a volunteer from that page (hopefully at random, so the first person on the list doesn't get saddled with all the requests), and then add a new section on their talk page with your question? Or am I missing something. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You got it exactly right. Just pick one. Anything I can do for you?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on this thread at WP:DRR

I've made a proposal here on the DRR talk page. If you have a minute would you please read it and comment? It's very short. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to amend filing form (second try)

This has been brought up before and received support from one other editor but I'm giving it a second try. It would be very, very valuable to have the form for filing a DRN amended so that it requires the filing party to provide a link(s) to prior discussion. I waste a lot of time trying to verify that the case meets the threshold of prior discussion and/or accessing prior discussion to determine if I want to take a case etc. I also feel that others are likely doing the same thing and that the wasted time is multiplied. Does anyone object to such an addition? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a section of the form that says:

• Location of dispute--What is the location of this dispute? If there are multiple forums, list the main one and describe the others in the dispute description.

Can this be amended so that it specifically requests a link to the discussion(s)?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll wait awhile, but if no one objects after some time, I will make an edit request (the page is protected). Comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, and seems consistent with other WP pages where reports are filed. DonIago (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Support. I wonder if it shouldn't say something pretty specific, perhaps, "Please provide a link to the talk page where the discussion has occurred. (If no link is provided, or if the link is not to an article talk page or user talk page, then your filing will probably be closed without further processing. Remember that discussions which have only taken place through edit summaries are not sufficient.)" Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

While improving this form is well worth doing, in my opinion someone should do a proper job of re-engineering all of our DRN automation tools (bots and forms) from top to bottom. I have posted a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 59#Dispute resolution noticeboard -- also my second try. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've seconded your Bot Request. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Third that.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Based on T-Man's suggestions I propose the following modified text for the DRN filing form:

• Location of dispute--The dispute resolution noticeboard requires significant prior discussion on a talk page. Please provide a link(s) to the talk page thread(s) where discussion has occurred. Note: If a discussion link is not provided, or if the link is to an inappropriate discussion location such as WP:ANI, your DRN filing may be automatically closed.

Comments? Suggestions?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support - Me likey this Keithbob dude.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Mark :-) any other comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• Do it, good idea. Steven Zhang (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, it looks like we have consensus for the change. I'm waiting for this conversation regarding comprehensive changes to the DRN form and bot to conclude before I move ahead on this. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Ready for duty

Hi all, I realise I've been extremely tardy and absent from WP lately, just wanted to drop you all a note that I will be doing my co-ordinator stint from April-May. Look forward to getting back into things slowly (been unbelievably busy but will try getting back into Wikipedia more :) ) Steven Zhang (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Good to see you back in the saddle Steven! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Quick! Everyone look busy!! <smile> --Guy Macon (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Help needed

I'm frustrated with the current system we have for labeling and categorizing the status of individual cases including the summary chart that appears at the top of DRN and DRN talk pages (this page). As you can see, cases that are open and active are being mislabeled as Needs Attention and some cases that haven't been opened are mis-labeled In Progress. We'd like to have this and other deficiencies in the current automation system (and filing form) remedied, but we need your support here at the Bot Requests page, where it is currently being discussed. Please take a moment to leave a comment on that page. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I would also note that when I commented in the discussion section and didn't sign my name...it still opened the case.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Rip me to shreds!!

I was thinking that as DRN volunteers we don't spend enough time supporting and or criticizing each other. Certainly we don't want to do that during an open case -- that would undermine the volunteer -- but we certainly can do so after the cases close.

I would like to submit my two most recent cases -- one resolved and one failed -- for discussion. Was there anything I could have dome better? Are there any lessons learned that we could put into our DRN instructions?

The cases are:

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 89#Sevastopol

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 88#Debian

I have my asbestos underwear on, so please, flame away! :) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

In the Sevastopol dispute I noticed you commented and signed in the discussion before parties had made their opening Statements. I thought we were supposed to only do that when we need to drop off a not of concern about the actual filing? Didn't that open the case early?--Mark Miller (talk) 07:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It opens the case (meaning that the bot lists it as open and the other DRN volunteers know that I am working the case, but it doesn't open the discussion. In order to make this clear, my standard comment says

"Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages."

I like to let the users who have made statements know that someone is on the case, and the reason why we are waiting. Of course I am open to any arguments that I should wait.

This brings to mind a question that I have; maybe first-come-first served isn't the best way to assign cases? But what is better?

Also, I wouldn't mind a bit if another volunteer put a note on my talk page saying that they would like to take a case that I was thinking of taking. Given my health issues I have to be careful not to overdo it. But where should I advertise that fact? I also really like it when another volunteer weighs in on one of my cases. How do I let everyone know that is welcome?

Isn't anyone going to point out my blunder of forgetting to check to see if everyone got notifications by the bot? It's usually the first thing I do, but I missed it this time. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mention it because it seemed you did catch it at some point.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that good communication is the key to making DRN work and I like that Guy posted and let the participants know that he has seen the case and is awaiting statements from the parties. Sometimes a case sits for days or a week with no comments from a moderator and then we reprimand them for starting a conversation without a moderator. Its not very user friendly. The more we communicate with them the better IMO. I think every moderator has their own style and that's OK as long as they are getting the job done. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Step-in coordinator for a few days needed

Hi all,

I'm off to the Wikimedia Conference today (in berlin) so will have no internet access for at least 36 hours. Can someone please keep an eye on DRN until then? :) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 23:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I am too good-looking to be a "coordinator", but I will keep an eye on things. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

We've got your back Steven, have a great trip! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Guidance needed for DRN Indian General Elections

I just went to the talk page of Soorejmg (talk · contribs) to ask him to reply to comments above, but I saw he is currently involved in addressing edit war issues raised against him (or her). It would be unfair to expect him to pay attention to this discussion as well that conversation with administrators. I am asking the DRN Coordinator for guidance regarding whether to continue this discussion or close it for now. -Wikishagnik (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wikishagnik, I'm not the coordinator but Steven is out of web contact for a few days.... so I'll give my two cents. Is the edit war issue a discussion at ANI? Is it in regard to the same article under discussion here? If yes to both of those then you may want to close the case as DRN guidelines say: "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." Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Out of touch (more than usual...)

I'm going to be traveling in Poland for almost a month (4/16 - 5/12, ± a day or two) starting next Wednesday and will have limited connectivity (and little time to spend online on those occasions when I can get online) during that time. Between now and then I'm not going to be taking on anything that I might have to abandon when I leave. Do zobaczenia, y'all, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Bon voyage! DonIago (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Have fun...and I hope you're taking a camera!--Mark Miller (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Back

Sorry I've been away longer than I said (jet lag and all). I archived some of the cases that were closed and will work on the still open cases later. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 12:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how this process works

So I've been invited to participate in a discussion, and there is a section for "Summary of dispute by [me]", but when I try to edit it I get a big red warning: "Do not continue to discuss disputes before a volunteer has opened a thread. - this is not the article talk page." The entry is listed as "new", does that mean that no volunteer has yet opened a thread? The link "Need support? Ask us at #wikipedia-en-drn" doesn't work. It sounds as if my summary mustn't be entered yet, but isn't it needed at the beginning of the process? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey - I just got named in my first DRN case the other day, so I've been in much the same boat. I went ahead and posted a summary of how I view the disputed issue, and that was apparently correct. By discussion they mean the discussion section at the bottom of the case; the personal summaries come first, then you follow instructions given by the mediator. Hope that helps. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Rodeo Drive case

If you've not read Mark Miller's opening comments, you should do so first before reading this. The discussion at the article talk page seems to me to be proceeding pretty well. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah is making plainly-stated and well-explained objections (which is not to say I either agree or disagree with him, but only that he's not giving them short shrift) and the other parties are responding and learning, as newcomers, how to respond. The sense of frustration and urgency seems to be deriving from their class project deadline and that's a consideration foreign to the interests of this encyclopedia. I would note that the listing editor, Gotgomped, does not have even one single content-related talk page edit, either at the article talk page or at any user talk page (he has a couple of conduct-related ones, but none that really focus on content). It was Jbrubins who proposed bringing this to DRN. The urgency created by their deadlines is not our concern and I have to cynically wonder if this dispute will not resolve itself altogether by simply being dropped by them once that deadline passes. My recommendation to the DRN community is that this ought to be sent back to the talk page. I'm okay with WP being used as class projects, but that use cannot be allowed to disrupt the ordinary workings of the encyclopedia and the professors and students doing it can't be given any special consideration that other editors are not given. If any DRN volunteer wants to go over there and jump in as an opinion-giver or as a mediator, they are of course free to do so. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Please critique my essay

I wrote an essay about a common DRN situation at User talk:Guy Macon/One against many. Any suggestions on improving it would be most welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty good, Guy, but you probably need to address IAR in your section on local consensus. Here's my feeling about IAR local consensus: I'm not at all sure that it has any real, practical day-to-day meaning, but if it has any meaning at all it's this: You're not required to follow content rules (except the "legal" ones like BLP and copyright) if you think there a good reason not to do so. But if you do make a noncomplying edit, you only have the right to insist that your edit be retained if you gain consensus for it. This can be (a) silent consensus (because, and only so long as, no one objects) or (b) a real consensus. Even a real consensus will not stand up against an objection that policy says something else unless the parties forming that consensus expressly acknowledge in their discussion that they acknowledge that the edit they want to make violates (or at least possibly or probably violates) policy but their intent is to form a local exception against policy for substantial reasons stated in the discussion. (Notice I don't say "good" reasons: they just have to be non-arbitrary reasons; reasons better than "I just don't like the policy" or "I just think this is better" or "I vote in favor of the exception.") If they don't do that, then the possibility exists that either they're just being arbitrary or that they're simply mistaken about what the policy says or means or how it applies and in all of those cases the correctly-understood policy prevails. Whether it is practically possible to form a true real-consensus IAR local exception in today's Wikipedia, at last without canvassing, meatpuppetry, or tag-teaming, is in my opinion doubtful in the extreme, but if you can then it ought to stand until a new active or silent consensus is formed to set it aside. (But the possibility of a new consensus, especially a silent consensus, means that you had better keep a close watch on the page. If you've got a blatant policy violation, it's very likely that someone is going to come along and reverse it and if you're not there to say that they can't do that without forming a new consensus then their edit is going to form a new consensus after a bit of time passes.) At least that's what I think and I have to say that I don't think I've ever seen a real, valid IAR local consensus at an article. So ... maybe you don't need to address it after all. ;-) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC) PS: The foregoing analysis presumes that IAR local consensuses are possible. There's another, much more limited, possibility for what IAR means: It only means that you won't get blocked or banned for clicking "Save page" on an edit which doesn't comply with policy, but it only has that meaning the very first time you click it (and doesn't even have that meaning on certain kinds of legal-policy matters). It's kind of like the right to make BOLD edits: BOLD gives you the right to click "Save page" but does not give you any right to have your edit retained more than the nanosecond after it appears in the encyclopedia nor does it give you the right to EW or tendentiously argue for it once you've clicked it the first time. — TM 20:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Good feedback. I need to think about the best wording; more later. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I have been thinking about the above. It seem to me that, in the specific context on a one against many content dispute, the one cannot invoke WP:IAR against the local consensus. He still has his basic problem of having to convince someone else that IAR is desirable in this situation. But what if the many invoke IAR? In that case I think that the one has every right to post an RfC and see if the larger community agrees about IAR. Because of this, I don't see any change in the essay that will help the target audience -- the lone holdout against a clear consensus. Thoughts? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The place where it's relevant is your "When you think the consensus is local" section, but it's only relevant even there if the one is up against a valid IAR local consensus. And like I said, above, I've never seen one of those but I do feel that, at least in theory, one could exist. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Rodeo Drive Discussion

Hello Mark Miller, I am a bit confused about the Rodeo Drive discussion. If you are working on the discussion, could you add the in progress tag to the discussion? The bot is on sick leave and your help would be appreciated.--Wikishagnik (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The Rodeo Drive DR/N has not been opened and I purposely did not sign my comment with the intention that my listing on the DRN Volunteer Page would open the discussion. That has happened before but the bot seems to have that issue fixed. Volunteers may occasionally make comments if they feel something should be noted before going forward and without opening the discussion. At the time I made the note, the participants had not yet made any comments other than the filing editor. I believe this is still the status. Above are some important comments by another long term DRN volunteer. I cannot exclude the case as it may or may not have merit, but it does seem likely that the dispute is being handled at the talk page. The basic premise of the request seems to be one of speed and urgency towards a deadline. Here is something I just reminded myself of recently: Wikipedia:Don't panic.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh my gosh 16 cases!

Wow, we've got 16 cases in the pipe (chart) So far we are doing well thought EXCEPT Formula Season One [2] they've been waiting a long time and got passed over. Can anyone help? Steven Zhang, TransporterMan, Wikishagnik, Guy Macon -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Help! Can someone please moderate the outstanding DRN case mentioned above? Thanking you in advance! Acronin3 (talk · contribs), Buster7 (talk · contribs), EuroCarGT (talk · contribs), Hasteur (talk · contribs),Mark Miller (talk · contribs), MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs), Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs), PhilKnight (talk · contribs), Technical 13 (talk · contribs), Theodore! (talk · contribs) or Khimaris (talk · contribs)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI {{Pinggroup}} is better than all of those templates. Hasteur (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Now I am loving that ping group template. that would have saved me a lot of time a while back.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

And Steve Zhang and I both have the Mass Message bit if anyone needs to spam, uh, notify a lot of volunteers' talk pages at one time. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey folks, I'm just trying to get the job done and there is nothing wrong with pinging people when we have a backlog nor was it inappropriate for me to notify the selected group of volunteers that I pinged in the manner I did. Save the criticism for one of your paid employees at work, I'm a volunteer here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Help, Mr. Wizard!

Er. I mean "Mr Coordinator"... :)

At the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting case, one of the involved editors has signed up as the DRN volunteer on the case he is involved with. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

(Discussion below moved here from my talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC) )

I posted a question on Steven Zhang's talk page, but haven't heard anything, so I'm copying it here in case you can help.

I started a DRN - but I also volunteered to help with other DRNs at the same time. My DRN now says "In Progress." Does the system think that a volunteer opened the DRN, as apparently happens sometimes when an involved editor is also a volunteer? Should I remove my name from the volunteer list? Will I actually get a notice on my talk page when a volunteer takes on my DRN?

Since I haven't heard anything, I went ahead and commented out my name as a volunteer,[3] but I think the DRN process still thinks a volunteer has taken the case... Or does it? I've never done one of these before. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

That should have worked. I have been waiting for our robot to update the page, but it doesn't seem to be happening. I am looking into it. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I am going to be unavailable for at least a few days, perhaps longer, so I am moving this to the DRN talk page. Can someone please help? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if much can be done here, I think the bot will remember that someone edited the thread already and won't change the thread so it indicates the involved user isn't a volunteer. Probably best to just have someone else make a dummy edit, or even better take on the case :) (I'm still recovering from travel) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 19:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Willem Buiter

There is an edit war going on the Willem Buiter page in his personal section. The back and forth is about an affair but seems from the stories that these are allegations for both parties involved, but I noticed on the Talk: Willem Buiter Page that the editor that has made the changes to his page is the same handle of the person that has only contributed to the other party in this dispute: Heleen Mees. Both are semi-protected but my contention is that these allegations don't even belong there in the first place until it is resolved, but the editor (Bmwz3hm) that does solely Heleen edits and questionable contributions to Willem appears to not have the Wiki guidelines as motivation. Seems more of ill intent. Thoughts or suggestions?--OnceaMetro (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@OnceaMetro: Are you asking for DR? Then the talk page is the wrong location. WP:ANEW is the proper place to report Edit warring violations. WP:BLPN is the proper place to report and discuss issues with BLPs. And WP:DRN is the proper place to open a DRN request. As such, I will quick archive this in 24 hours from my signature. Hasteur (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Hasteur, I will post there. I appreciate it.--OnceaMetro (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

AWOL

I have some pressing RL issues coming up in the next few weeks and I won't be on WP as regularly as I have been, so...... I will not be able to pick up any new cases for a while. I will stop by from time to time and do some admin type/clean up as needed but I don't plan on taking any new cases after I finish the one I have underway now. Also keep in mind that TransporterMan, another DRN regular, is away for a month or so. Meanwhile, I know others will fill the gaps. Thanking you in advance! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I can try to fill in here and there this week and the next. I have literally been AWOL for a considerable amount of time (very busy in RL) and left some stuff unattended; I'd be happy to help out once again, though. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 14:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I will try to do more as well. However, have to recuse myself from the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting DRN as I was an early contributor to the article and have had interactions with a number of editors listed.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks gents! I will continue with my current case, T-45/55, but after that my involvement will be hit and miss for a while.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Can I withdraw?

I wanted a second opinion because I don't fully understand his pov, but this is taking forever and I've decided I'm okay with the changes. Can I just withdraw the dispute case? Bali88 (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

"Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities" filing requires assistance!

Attention collaborators, we need a DRN volunteer to take the above case which has been open since April 16. This is an urgent request for someone to please assist in this case! (Acronin3—Alpha Quadrant—AstroChemist—Atethnekos—BaSH PR0MPT—Bejnar—Bobzchemist—Buster7—Byzantine95—Cabe6403)--Maleko Mela (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Case closed by Maleko Mela as needing further discussion. --Bejnar (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually I thought the case had very little discussion and left that message on the talk page before I realized by the discussion that I did see that it appeared there was another discussion elsewhere and when checking the User pages discovered there had been extensive discussion. So I went ahead and removed all mention of here and changes I was making to close the case for not being enough discussion but forgot to remove the message I left on the article talk page. I will correct that.--Maleko Mela (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you suggest a proper way of dispute resolution, perhaps? I talked with Qwerty786 a lot and we clearly disagree, I made entries into the articles' talk pages, I made entries into the wikiprojects involved (Serbia and Kosovo) talk pages and nobody responded, and here again nobody wants to get involved. I mean the current situation is slowly pushing towards an edit war... Heracletus (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm stepping in to do something about this discussion, though I don't think either party is going to like my Solominic solution... Hasteur (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you King Solom.....Hasteur.;-)--Maleko Mela (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, looks like annother volunteer jumped in so I'm yeilding. Hasteur (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Asking for another volunteer's assistance

Do you think that I should close this case? It seems that a consensus by four users formed at around the time this case was filed (see the last thread on the article's talk). I am tempted to close it, but am asking for a second opinion. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 21:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I would close it. I have created an essay (WP:1AM) about this exact situation. (Full disclosure: a quote of mine was once used on the back cover of a book that might be considered to be related to Abiogenesis) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, Guy. I'll go ahead and close it. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 02:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Well crap...is it May already? Where the heck did the year go?--Maleko Mela (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the year did fly by. It feels like it should be February. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 02:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

ResearchGate

After a small amount of consideration, I have decided that I should post this here for others to review. I recently closed the ResearchGate filing due to the two issues. 1) The OP has made it clear they do not have time for the filing and 2) I do not feel that requiring anyone, an editor or a volunteer, to register a membership to a site is a requirement we should support for sources or to advance a DRN filing.[4] I wish for others to weigh in on whether or not that was a proper closing. Thank you. Mark Miller--Maleko Mela (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

A "dispute" brought here by an indefinitely blocked user

Can someone with greater authority than me please look at the discussion titled "water fluoridation"? The IP editor who brought it here has admitted in that section to being a blocked user. I have a feeling there's something not quite right with that situation. HiLo48 (talk) 09:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the section should be closed, please. See the discussion at the top of the request. I have reviewed the user's unblock request and declined it. Bishonen | talk 11:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC).

Done. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Failure: opening discussion

I tried to open discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Traditional Chinese medicine. I am on the list at Wikipedia:DRN/V#List of the DRN volunteers, but the bot didn't open it, and in fact when I manually changed the discussion to "open" the bot changed it back to "needs assist". What do I need to do? --Bejnar (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The mislabeling of cases by the Earwig bot is a chronic problem that we have complained about on numerous occasions but which the tech volunteers seem reluctant to fix.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Noble Park name

After doing some research on my father Noble S.D. Buckley I noticed that you have said that Noble Park was named after an explosives supplier to my grandfather Frank Buckley, this is incorrect the area was named after his son Noble, apart from my father and mother telling me this as a child (both are now deceased) I also have a souvenir programme from 1984 which also states this. How can this be changed? Regards, Vicki Lee Filippidis Vickifilippidis (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I've changed it but if you have any further comments please place them on the article's talk page or on my user talk page as this is not the appropriate venue for such inquiries. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Help needed

Help! There are several cases that were filed more than a week ago and still have no DRN volunteer. Can you please help? Thanking you in advance! Acronin3 (talk · contribs), Buster7 (talk · contribs), EuroCarGT (talk · contribs),Mark Miller (talk · contribs), MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs), Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs), PhilKnight (talk · contribs), Technical 13 (talk · contribs), Theodore! (talk · contribs) or Khimaris (talk · contribs) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Vacating the DRN co-ord post

Hi all,

I'm really flat out at the moment and can't dedicate the time that the co-ordinator post needs. Can someone please take over (I've removed myself from the post). Sorry, and thanks. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 01:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I can do it, if no one else volunteers.--Maleko Mela (talk) 05:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I am still having medical issues (as before, nothing life threatening, just really, really annoying). I will lend a hand when I can, but may be off the computer at random times and thus cannot [commit to anything. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm still traveling in Poland and won't be regularly available to help until some time after May 12. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I give up. Seriously.--Maleko Mela (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It would be really nice to have a coordinator, even if just to share their experience. --Bejnar (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't take the responsibility just now as I have too many things going on in real life but I'll look in on things and do clean up etc. when I can.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I have more time now so I've listed myself as DRN coordinator.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

suzannah lipscomb

I added info to the Suzannah Lipscomb page:

Whilst studying at Oxford University she taught Lipscomb is studying history at Oxford University at the university's Middle Eastern Dancing school.

Using the following link as the source

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/oct/19/health.lifeandhealth

The user TheRedPenOfDoom is objecting to this because in the article it refers to Suzie. As Suzie is a common known abbreviated firm of Suzannah and the 'suzie' in the article studied at the same university, studying the same subject at the same time as Suzannah then I think it is fair to say this is the same person.

The RedPenOfDoom removed my info and when I reinstated it I was accused of disruptive editing. Can you please advise why my information addition is not valid?

I'm sorry, but we do not accept requests for dispute resolution on this page. If you wish to make a request for dispute resolution, first be sure that the matter has been thoroughly discussed on a talk page and if you still cannot come to a resolution, then make a request here by clicking on the "Request dispute resolution" button at the top of the main noticeboard page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

DRN awards created

I have created a series of DRN Awards and award templates and set up, subject to community discussion, a set of rough standards for awarding them. See Dispute resolution noticeboard/Awards for details. All volunteers should feel free to hand out awards as may be appropriate after checking out that page. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• 
  DRN Award, Base Grade
• 
  DRN Award, Grade 1
• 
  DRN Award, Grade 2
• 
  DRN Award, Grade 3
• 
  DRN Award, Grade 4 (reserved)

Great idea, there are a number of volunteers doing great work at DRN and they should be appreciated. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible precedents as new section?

I'm not exactly intimately familiar with the workings or best practices of DRN (yet), but I was wondering whether others here would consider it potentially helpful if DRN filings included a "Possible precedents" section, where editors could add links to existing discussions that they feel might inform a current dispute. Kind of like "See also" links in articles. The section would not be used (explicitly, anyway) to try to shape a dispute, just to allow interested parties to review previous situations that might have bearing on the current one.

For instance, right now there's a dispute regarding, for film articles, "Differences from the novel" sections. I've done enough editing of film articles to know this has come up before, so I noted a discussion that had occurred at WT:FILM and a related RFC. I then remembered that there in fact had been a DRN case regarding a "Historicity" section, which while not strictly related seemed to have some similar basic arguments, so I linked to that as well (and the related RFC). My goal wasn't to say "last time this came up the ruling was X" but rather to make it clear that the situation had been discussed before and some of the arguments that applied then might be relevant to the current dispute. Now obviously there's likely to be some bias, in that editors are probably less likely to bring up precedents that don't support their viewpoints...but we can at least try to minimize the presentation of it. In any case, consensus can change; there's no reason former precedents should dictate the course of a DRN filing...but I believe they can inform it.

Anyway, I won't swear revenge on the DRN volunteers or such if nobody thinks this is worthwhile; just thought it might be potentially useful, and possibly provide a more user-friendly central point for listing precedents than wading through prose. Thanks for your thoughts! DonIago (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes its a good idea. We'd also like to have the DRN filing form amended to include a place for people to list where a recent prior discussion has taken place as it is a requirement for case acceptance and it saves the DRN coordinator and volunteers a lot of time if they have a link. So your suggestions is an extension to this idea.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Where do I go?

Timeshare tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I was making a few edits to timeshare tour, and there's an editor sitting-on/camping the article reverting every change I make. He's also calling me names in the talk page and making unfounded accusations. Finally, he's dismissing points I'm making about the tone and content of the article. Where do I go for help on that? Thanks you for any help. 66.67.50.210 (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you need to take your concern to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You've posted this on the DRN Talk page, where the Noticeboard and its practices/policies are discussed, not on the Noticeboard itself. Dwpaul ^Talk 16:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Update: The editor in question has indicated he/she has moved on and left the article and the DRN case that was filed has now been closed as a result. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)