Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Another Tagging Dispute

Not another tagging dispute! Can someone review my comments on the Impalement tagging dispute and comment on them, as to whether tagging as such isn't really worth arguing about here? My own take is that the purpose of tagging is to call attention to articles that need improvement, and the purpose of moderated discussion is to improve articles, and that it is article content and not tags that should be discussed here. Have I missed something, or have some of the editors who come here to argue about tags missed something? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

There appears also to be a possible issue of article ownership involving taking an article to Good Article or Featured Article status, and that some editors seem to think that once they have promoted an article, that should preclude lesser editors from messing with it, but that isn't the question that I am asking here. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the specific dispute (yet), but I think it's reasonable to discuss whether a tag is appropriate here, and it sounds like an impolitic value judgment to say that something "isn't really worth arguing about here". If it's important enough to the concerned editors for them to bring it here to begin with, then barring it being a trolling situation I think we should respect that the issue matters to them. Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, the reassessment process was improperly executed. Only registered editors may engage in an individual assessment, but the IP acknowledges that's what they did. DonIago (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Just as someone who looked through the article diffs and the talkpage a few times to understand the case being brought, it looks to me like the IP made some valid edits-- removed unsourced information, fixed the subheader formatting and made the whole thing read less like a grandiose essay prose-wise-- and those in opposition aren't really rejecting those edits on a constructive basis, even though the GAR wasn't done right. The way the IP framed the case was a little confusing-- made it seem like it was strictly something about the GA reassessment subpage itself-- but obviously there needs to be some friendlier tones taken around that content discussion in general. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 18:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

"Tag-bombing" is generally considered a contentious approach that doesn't give people a warm, fuzzy congenial attitude; it's often viewed as an attack. WP:TAGBOMB. IF there is a legit need to improve the article, best to either boldly {{sofixit}} or raise the issue at talk. Drive-by tag-bombers drive me freaking nuts, just speaking personally. Montanabw^(talk) 18:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

My original point is that the real issue should not be whether the article should be tagged (and I agree that drive-by tagging is problematic), but whether and how the article should be improved. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Upon perusing the sources and noticing that there are sources pointing to blogs in places (see references 34 and 52), I'll have to say a "yes, definitely" to the former. I'd be all for letting the DRN case run its course and seeing if the involved editors can come to an agreement and work collaboratively, but since none of us volunteers have picked up the DRN case yet, should being bold take precedence? BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 19:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

So it looks like the IP wants to keep the DRN case open and set up an account, so I'd be game for picking up the case if/when the other parties chime in. That is, if no one else planned to or had any objections to me picking it up? I'm literally the newest volunteer on DRN, so I'd completely understand the latter. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 23:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Personally I wish they'd settled for just going through the community reassessment process, but oh well. I'll try to keep an eye on the discussion and will let you know if I have any advice. Unfortunately my time's currently at a bit of a premium, but feel free to give me a poke if you want my eyes on something. DonIago (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Seems more like the tension is running down on its own anyway, so it remains to be seen if this will remain open much longer. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 15:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I invite any more experienced DRN moderators to scrutinize the way I questioned the parties in my most recent posting, as I did so with the intent of making sure everyone thinks long and hard about why they're disagreeing and is able to explain themselves as specifically and clearly as possible-- I worry that it may be at a risk of seeming like I'm not doing it neutrally, or too specifically or controlling of the discussion, or just plain wrong... So if it seems as such to anyone more experienced in the ways of DRN I'll retract it and try a different tack. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 23:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@BlusterBlaster: I think this may have gone stale, but I think what you did was generally appropriate, BB. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: While tagging disputes are distasteful and usually a total waste of time (as are most infobox disputes, most notably <shudder> musical genre disputes), they are content disputes and within the scope of this noticeboard and dispute resolution, generally. It would be best if you would not make proclamations of the scope of this noticeboard without either clearly stating that it's your personal opinion or discussing it here on the talk page before making the assertion on the main page. It's fine to have areas of dispute which you do not care to handle (I certainly have some), but the way to handle that is just to not become involved in the case. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Did one last ping to all parties on this one, and giving it two days before I close it as stale. Also, TransporterMan, I noticed that you moved that piece of conversation I hatted between the IP and I am One of Many in OccultZone's dispute summary, into IOM's dispute summary section, when IOM hasn't actually provided their own apparent dispute summary for the case... it just looks a little confusing to me since the IP's post comes first, and IOM only comments below it saying that it wasn't the right place to discuss it (I'm assuming they were referring to the IP commenting in OZ's dispute summary section). Would it be best for me to move that chunk down to the discussion section into a spot where it's most chronologically accurate, or am I splitting hairs and should leave it as it is? BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 17:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

My bad. I missed that there were two parties' posts in the hatted section. I've re-fixed it about as well as I think it can be fixed. Sometimes we just have to watch the timestamps. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Question that Robert McClenon and/or TransporterMan may be able to answer for me: the filing IP in the case asked me on my talkpage if I could wait five days or so and let them know specifically on their TP before I do anything to close the discussion or pass it on to another volunteer. I'd figure making sure parties are notified of moderator changes or discussions going stale are just the due process and would be done anyway, but is it unusual to honor a request by the filer for a wait-before-closure of that length? BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 14:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreeing to that, at least if it's for a good reason, shouldn't be a problem. (I don't consider IP editors' inability to have a watchlist to be a good reason, however, since they can correct that problem by just obtaining an account, but that's just my opinion.) But discussions of that kind of thing should generally be held in the case section here, not on your user talk page or, at the very least, the discussion should be mentioned and linked-to. I ordinarily try to avoid discussions about or related to the dispute anywhere other than in the case section, and especially on user talk pages, to avoid any possible appearance of off-case partisanship, favoritism, or other bias. Putting it here will also help prevent some other volunteer (or me) seeing that the case is stale and closing it without knowledge of that agreement. Also don't forget that once cases are 14 days old that they'll be automatically archived and, in effect, closed if any 24 hour period passes when there's not an edit to the case unless a volunteer adjusts the date in the "Do not archive until" case header. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you explain the difference between archived and closed? Because it seems contradictory to archive a case before closing it.96.52.0.249 (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Cases may be archived without being closed. I would imagine the most likely instance is stale cases, which may be archived without having ever been closed in the technical sense. As TM noted, cases that are 14 days old may be closed if there's no activity for 24 hours. This type of "closure" often occurs at WP:ANI, where no decision is reached but at the same time nobody weighs in on the discussion. DonIago (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

If I might clarify one thing: Cases more than 14 days old will automatically — that is, by a bot without human action — be archived if there is no edit within every 24 hour period or unless a volunteer changes the "Do not archive until" date in the case header (which ought to be done only if clear progress towards resolution, even if intermittent, is being made, and then only for a week or two at the most). Archiving doesn't close the case per se, it just moves it to an archive page where it is not supposed to be further modified. That's an effective close, even if it's not a formal one. Cases can be moved back from the archive to the active page, but in my opinion that (a) should only be done by the primary volunteer handling the case or the current DRN coordinator and (b) shouldn't be done at all unless there's a damned good reason to do so and a high likelihood of successful resolution. Cases that need more than 14 days to finish are not really within the scope and purpose of DRN, which was intended to be a lightweight form of dispute resolution with a weightiness somewhere between Third Opinion and Formal Mediation. That doesn't mean that cases which show some real possibility of successful resolution can't be kept here longer, but that should be the only situation in which that happens. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

But isn't that hard to know: weatherwhether there is a real possibility of successful resolution? I thought a WP:3O was for "noncontinuous" questions like "Should we use green or red for Germany in the map for the legend?". This would be the first pointofcontact for a dispute resolution. Mediation would be just the step below Arbitration Committee.96.52.0.249 (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Replied here.96.52.0.249 (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that captial r in the edit summary, User:TransporterMan. I can agree with everything to which you are leading at: Had I had caught the mistake of making an account before posting that reassessment, I think the dispute could have gone in a different way.96.52.0.249 (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking to get back into this...

I've been away for a few years but something has motivated me to get involved again here. I'll need to take it slow - to say I'm out of shape is an understatement, so I'd like to tag along on a few cases before I get involved again. Has much changed around here? Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 06:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Everyone: Steve has asked over at my talk page to replace me for the June-July Coordinator position. I'm fine and comfortable with that, but anyone else is free to object if they care to and to discuss it here. Steve is Our Founder here at DRN and has plenty of experience to handle things, though he's been away for quite awhile. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I won't break anything. :) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Potential misuse of the discussion 'archive' template

I want to caution volunteers about the potential and unintended misuse of this {{archivetop}} {{archivebottom}} template. I've been visiting this noticeboard everyday for 18 months and I've never almost seen that template used in DRN cases or on this talk page. Now that template is being used frequently and I'm concerned about the effect is having on participants and inexperienced editors and volunteers. We should be aware that the application of that template is a unilateral,somewhat off putting, and many times, unnecessary action. To illustrate my point:

• The 'archive' method of closing a discussion is a formal closure usually reserved for formal settings like WP:ANI and WP:RFC.
• In those cases archive closures are preferably performed by an Admin. However, non-Admins may use the template if they are 1) completely uninvolved 2) fully understand the WP:CONSENSUS guideline and 3) feel sure that a formal closure is necessary and will go unchallenged.
• I don't think it is at all appropriate to use the archive template in the middle of a DRN case and I would strongly suggest that volunteers discontinue that practice and use the {{collapsetop}} and {{collapsebottom}} template instead. The collapse template hides inappropriate comments rather than highlighting them with a purple color via the archive template.
• Here on the DRN talk page it has not been our tradition to put an archive template on discussion threads. If a discussion has concluded than a simple {{done}} or {{resolved}} template will suffice. There may be some occasions when a formal closure is needed, such as when non-DRN volunteers are sniping at each other and won't leave page even after being told to take their discussion elsewhere. Or if there is a protracted and contentious discussion amongst DRN volunteers. In these cases a completely uninvolved party can make a formal close and in my opinion should use the {{discussiontop}} and {{discussionbottom}} template [1] (rather than the archive template) as it is less formal, less off putting and more appropriate for this forum.
• These are my thoughts and suggestions. For more information please see WP:CLOSE. Thanks for your time and consideration. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Mea culpa, Keithbob. I've used it a couple of times since I started doing DRN and TransporterMan has already coached me on properly using closing templates within cases, so that won't happen again. I don't know if my closure of the Social Democrats discussion on the talkpage was unwarranted, as I hadn't been involved with the discussion at all and it seemed to be heading towards PA territory which warranted a shutdown in my view, but I'll certainly remove it if it was improper and I'll refrain from doing so in the future. Would I still be considered involved, as a fellow DRN volunteer, in cases like that even if I hadn't participated in the discussion? BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 19:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I fully concur with all Keithbob has said about the DRN main page, and mostly concur about the DRN talk page. I will say that I find {{archive top}} and {{discussion top}} both preferable to {{collapse top}} simply because they don't hide anything. Hiding stuff comes very close to deleting it and that's ordinarily frowned upon (though on the main page even deletion may be permitted under the Control of Mediation policy). A middle alternative on the main page is to use strikeout, which makes the point quite firmly but neither hides nor deletes anything and has the advantage of being able to address specific pieces of text rather than entire posts or paragraphs. Here on the talk page, I agree that we need to exercise prudence, but when it is needed I prefer archive top over discussion top simply because discussion top always (?) closes its header with "A summary of the conclusions reached follows." followed by whatever comes after the reason= parameter. That's more suited for a consensus closure than a we're-cutting-this-off kind of closure (as I last did above). Of course, the best solution (and the one I probably should have used above) was just to tell everyone to stop. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Good points T-man. Bluster, I think uninvolved means that you at least did not participate in the discussion. Being a DRN volunteer doesn't automatically make one involved but if we've had prior involvement on the issue being discussed or with the participants involved then better to let someone else do it.

Also, I think there has been a tendency lately for volunteers to discuss the content and nature of the cases here on this page. Especially before they've been opened. That draws the case participants into this talk page and creates havoc. I think if we need coaching or advice about a specific case we'd do best to approach the coordinator or another experienced volunteer on their user talk page and get advice or mentoring rather than discussing the details or nature of the case here and creating counterproductive drama.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} should be avoided. They are "strange" because they do not close discussion, but they hide it. As a result, it is permitted to enter additional comments inside, although those comments will only be seen by opening the box or via watchlist. It is sometimes necessary to use the {{hat}} and {{hab}} templates, in order to mark comments that should never have been entered (complaints about contributors). Are we still allowed to hat, or should we strike? The advantage to hat is that it shows why the comments have been hidden. (If the hat is used repeatedly, it may be getting to be time to fail the thread, but that is another matter.) I think that the {{archivetop}} and {{archivebottom}} are being used as milder versions of hat, to suppress further discussion without suppressing the boxed comments. If this is incorrect, then it should perhaps be avoided. I haven't used {{discussion top}} and {{discussion bottom}}. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

As to discussion of cases here, I have posted below that the volunteers should have a mechanism, such as a mailing list, for asking for advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

part II

After having done some research, I'm having second thoughts about collapsing, striking, or deleting conduct comments from the DRN main page. I think that we're okay, but it's not as clear-cut as I've thought it to be in the past. Here's my train of thought for you to consider:

• Our authority comes from this section of the Mediation Policy, which says that a mediator can deal with the mediation page in the same way as his/her user talk page.
• The User Pages Guideline says that it's acceptable for a user to remove other user's comments from his/her talk page.
• But the Talk Page Guidelines

• First say (in the lede) that they're applicable to noticeboards as well as talk pages, "When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply."
• Second say this:

Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request. Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. If you make anything more than minor changes it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note such as "[possible libel removed by ~~~~]". Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: Personal talk page cleanup: See the section § User talk pages for more details. Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons, banning, or anti-promotional policies Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived. Off-topic posts: If a discussion goes off-topic (per the above subsection § How to use article talk pages), editors may hide it using the templates {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} or similar templates—these templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors. This normally stops the off-topic discussion, while allowing people to read it by pressing the "show" link. At times, it may make sense to move off-topic posts to a more appropriate talk page. It is still common to simply delete gibberish, comments or discussion about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article), test edits, and harmful or prohibited material as described above. Another form of refactoring is to move a thread of entirely personal commentary between two editors to the talk page of the editor who started the off-topic discussion. Your idea of what is off topic may be at variance with what others think is off topic; be sure to err on the side of caution. The template {{rf}} can be used as well as to denote the original source page of the content.

In the past I've thought that it was okay to collapse, strike, or delete conduct comments because that was permissible for all content on your user talk page. I saw a recent discussion — I'm afraid I don't recall where it was — in which an editor was being taken to task for removing sections of other user's posts on his or her user talk page. The point was being made that while it's acceptable to remove entire posts that removing part of a post falls under the prohibition against edits which change the meaning of others' talk page posts even on your own talk page. (The user was arguing that his edits didn't change the meaning: the edits in question were boilerplate warnings — not of the kind which cannot be removed (of which there are a few) — and s/he was just trimming out some of the inapplicable boilerplate. Much of the problem was that the editor was perceived as being a scofflaw, disputatious, or low-competence editor and these edits, though no one said it outright, were pretty clearly being seen as a manifestation of his obstreperousness. I don't know how that finally came out, but some fairly experienced and ordinarily-neutral editors were making the point, at least by implication, that any removal of less than all of a talk page post changes its meaning in violation of the rule quoted above.)

While I think that my prior theory about control of one's own user pages may not be as good as I thought it was, I think that there are two theories which can support strikeouts, collapses, and deletions:

• First, that comments about conduct are prohibited materials at this noticeboard. Our page rules prohibit discussion of conduct (and I've just changed the page header to make clear that it's an actual prohibition). That argument is somewhat vulnerable, I fear, to an argument under CONLIMITED that we don't have the right to change the effect of the Talk Page Guidelines by our local rules, though I also think that there are counterarguments to that.
• Second, and much better, is that such conduct comments are off-topic posts at this noticeboard. Both noticeboards and articles have the right to determine their own scope and our topic here is to facilitate and resolve questions of content, only, and we've clearly said that discussion of conduct will play no part in that.

Finally, having said that, I think that I need to spend some more time on the question of whether we can strike out, collapse, or delete less than entire posts, especially if that action changes the meaning of the post. The safe thing to do, however, is to only do it to entire posts. In light of our mission, however, I'm afraid that could often be too extreme: We want to keep the "good stuff" a disputant says that's about content and not throw that baby out with the bathwater by deleting a post because it has conduct mentioned in it along with content. I'm wondering if an exception to the Talk Page Guidelines needs to be built into the Mediation policy, but I need to look more at the entire problem.

This much I'm sure of: If a volunteer does strike out, collapse, or delete material, whether an entire post or just part and gets reverted, it's generally a bad idea to re-revert. Taking other action, such as threatening to resign from the case unless the party either consents to the removal or unless they agree to stop the conduct allegations altogether is a much better remedy and one that won't get DRN in front of AN or ANI over this issue.

Whew, there's a TLDR post if I've ever written one. Comments from anyone intrepid enough to read through that steaming pile of stuff? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

PS: On further reflection, I've realized that I have at least in part failed to see the forest for the trees. If you're going to delete, and probably strike out or collapse, an entire post then the treat-it-like-your-user-talk-page rule is clearly sufficient to justify that, because you can do that on your user talk page without any justification other than you want it gone. It's only when you do less than an entire post that you may need other authority and, as I've noted above, the no-changes-in-meaning rule may or may not trump the other arguments I made above. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC) PPS: Also, the strikeout language in the no-changes-in-meaning rule is probably based on the notion that strikeouts are something ordinarily done by a user to their own posts to withdraw or correct something they've said and doing it to someone else's post can be mis-perceived as such. That's just a conjecture, but I bet it's right. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

So, what are the preferred methods of dealing with comments on contributors, which may or may not be personal attacks? I see that a moderator can strike them. The only issue there is that it doesn't clearly indicate why the moderator struck the comments. I had thought that hatting them was appropriate because the summary is displayed. Is hatting still appropriate, or is it deprecated? If a moderator chooses to delete a post because it is a personal attack or completely off-topic, should the moderator warn the other editor on the other editor's talk page? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that deleting or striking the comments of participants is outside our purview unless they are legal threats or a gross personal attack (not to be confused with incivility). My preference is to collapse or hat incivility as off topic content. However, I only do so in severe cases after at least one warning to an individual user(s). I prefer 'collapse' as it is lighter in color and does not have the hat/hab default header of: This Discussion Has Been Closed. Do Not Modify It. DRN is a self described "informal place" and I don't think it is our intended role to be doing a formal lock down of sections in a moderated dispute because someone in some portion of that section was incivil. So for me I will continue to use the collapse top/bottom template to set aside inappropriate postings and allow users the option to view them or go back and strike or add a corrections to their comments if the need or want to.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Timeframes, a perspective from a filer

I am the filer of Talk:Impalement#tagging and as the discussion is nearing its end, I have my personal experience to share with you as suggestions.

My goal is to get the dispute resolved, but it was unclear to me when the dispute would end. I want to thank the moderator for the great work that he has put into the case, but I have a few suggestions.

The moderator, User:BlusterBlaster, stated: "Discussion appears to have gone stale, so I will post one last round of DRN talkpage notifications to request input from the other parties before I do a general close in a day or two." (16:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)).

This did happen, and discussion resumed. In this case, discussion stops and starts in spurts. For more active participants, this may be too much hassle to constantly check whether new messages have been added or not.

The suggestion I want to make is to clearly state a time period after the last comment by involved parties that a file will become stale. I suggest 5 days. This can be added to the top of the "boilerplate".96.52.0.249 (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

"Holds" of that nature are, in theory, fine and it's been a regular practice here to do just that before closing a case due to staleness (though 5 days is too long; 24-72 hours is more common), but I don't think that should be engraved into stone by becoming part of our "rules." That's partly because our archiving bot won't allow it if that hold happens near the end of our ordinary 14-day listing period (about which I hope to say more, above) without the volunteer manipulating the "Do not archive until" case header. Requiring that would create a general exception to that listing period and I think that's a bad idea in principle and, worse, creates a need for technical knowledge about the inner workings of this board that we simply cannot rely on all volunteers having. Still, I'd like to thank you for the suggestion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

"... creates a need for technical knowledge about the inner workings of this board that we simply cannot rely on all volunteers having" Is this coding?96.52.0.249 (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Timeframes and moderators

Maybe we need to add something to the guidelines for moderators about availability. I would suggest that it say, first, that a moderator should not accept a case unless he or she expects to be available every 24 hours for about the next ten days, and, second, a moderator should notify the coordinator if he or she expects to be unavailable during a case so that a replacement moderator can be found. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Good point:  Done see here rather here (post-spelling-correction). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Good additions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Communication Between Volunteers

Is there or can there be some way for volunteer moderators to communicate with other volunteer moderators other than on this talk page, such as a mailing list? Sometimes one of us wants the feedback or advice of other volunteers. As we have seen recently, asking for that advice on this talk page gets comments from parties to the case also (because the parties, quite properly, have watchlisted WP:DRN, and that inherently watchlists WT:DRN. If we don't have a mailing list, then maybe we should have one. An alternative would be a project subpage with its own talk page that would be poorly publicized, but maybe a mailing list would work better. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

On the one hand, we want to retain as much openness as possible and avoid any appearance of what the more paranoid participants would call "conspiring against them", but on the other hand it would be nice to have a place where someone can say "that was stupid, Guy. You took the wrong approach with that one" without Guy's faults becoming the main topic of conversation among those who should be discussing article content. All in all, I would prefer a talk subpage. Perhaps a talk subpage that all can read but where only DRN volunteers can comment? Or maybe not. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I like this subpage idea. I think transparency is very important, especially here, and a mailing list "back channel" would undermine that in a big way. Willondon (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd support a mailing list with publicly visible archives, but I think the subpage isn't any better than the current talk page. Kharkiv07 (T) 21:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I would Oppose a mailing list, since editors like me (IP, new, or otherwise) would find a subpage easier, than a "public" archive.96.52.0.249 (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I found the function and purpose of the TP here pretty confusing myself when I got here, since DRN volunteer-intended conversations would end up getting interspersed with case participants, or the latter doing back-and-forth that either ought to be happening on the case itself or not at all, and so on and so forth. I'd be game for a specific subpage that's meant for volunteers to talk about making DRN structural or policy improvements, or to seek advice on moderating current discussions, and the regular TP being intended for participants/non-volunteers to ask questions, make suggestions or talk about DRN in a general, non-case-specific manner. Subpages are contained within the watchlist of a given mainpage/talkpage hierarchy, though, aren't they? It'd be good to find a solution that would allow volunteers to discuss things coherently, but is still transparent and doesn't give off an air of exclusionism or too much formality. Unfortunately I don't really have a suggestion that would fit that bill, as far as I know. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 22:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I think adopting an experienced DRN volunteer as a mentor is a good idea and should possibly be a requirement for new volunteers. When they have questions about strategy or procedure they can go privately to their mentor's user talk page and get advice or feedback. This DRN talk page has, in the past, been reserved for discussion of universal procedural issues not for discussion of ongoing cases which naturally draws in case participants, dilutes the focus of the case, causes additional drama and distracts volunteers from administrative work. I think all of the volunteers who have joined the board in the past 3 months would do well to select Tman, Steve, Guy Macon or myself as a mentor so they can get their questions answered and continue to develop their skills. We are fortunate that the current DRN coordinator, Tman, is likely the most experienced and skilled DRN volunteer we have. But the coordinator position is open to volunteers of all experience levels because it is a clerical position that holds no special authority. For this reason a mentoring program would be my suggestion to answer newcomer questions and give guidance upon request at the mentor's talk page. We are fortunate to have attracted several new volunteers in recent months but I have some concern that they are sometimes modeling the mistakes of other newcomers instead of getting guidance from veteran volunteers. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

First, thanks to Keithbob for that vote of confidence. Second, I like the idea of the mentoring to get newcomer questions off this page and onto an experience user's talk page. I'm not sure that it ought to go much further than that, but I think that's all that KB's really proposing. And, see below for my comments on a mailing list (which boil down to "oppose"). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Economic history of Chile: Discussion should take place here or in the article talk page?

Hi,

I am back from my obliged wikiholiday and ...

1. In my opinion the project page is the place where the discussion should take place. User Dentren means [2] the discusion should be in the article talk page. Where should we discuss?.
2. Can you please open the dispute Economic History of Chile and tell Dentren and me where the discussion should take place?.
3. Would you please reinsert the {{POV-section}}{{undue-section}}{{fringe-section}} tags in the section "Salpetre Republic" of the article. The discussion hasn't begun and Dentren has already deleted the tags. Of course, I don't agree the current version manipulated by Dentren.

Thanks in advance, --Keysanger (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It appears that Dentren is mistaken. When a moderator has opened discussion about an article, the discussion takes place at this dispute resolution noticeboard under control of the moderator. As you can see, several other content disputes are currently being discussed at this dispute resolution noticeboard. I will leave it up to the moderator to handle discussion of the tags. The purpose of discussion, however, is to improve the article so that tags are no longer in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The tags are in order because there is a ongoing disagreement about the content of the article. Please, reinsert the tags or the readers will think that the content of the article is a consensus decision, which isn't. --Keysanger (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Since it appears that controversial editing is resuming, I have requested full page protection during moderation. The moderator will be back on-line shortly. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

To editors Kharkiv07 and Dentren:,

I would recommend to order chronologically my and Dentren's contribs in one sub-section or to write separated sub-sections for each panelist. At the moment I have written in three different sub-sections (main, Talk, and Keysanger's first) and it could get confusing to follow the thread. --Keysanger (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the volunteer who opened the case ran it different than me, I prefer subsections for everybody and that's what I'll be doing. Kharkiv07 (T) 23:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Policy on Warnings from Mediators

I just re-read the mediation policy from the link provided by TransporterMan. I would like to point out that it provides that if a mediator has already warned a participant, an administrator may subsequently sanction a participant if the participant repeats the behavior, such as personal attacks or civility violations. Should volunteers be quicker than they have been in the recent past to issue warnings? Also, are there particular administrators who can be pinged for the purpose, or (as I would guess) would it be better to make the request publicly at WP:ANI? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I just boldly added that provision to that policy yesterday, after my long discussion of the subject yesterday. Let's give it a few days to see if it sticks. But the answer is yes and no, whether under that provision or our customary practices. My thought is this: We're not here to be conduct cops, but to settle disputes as neutral observers. The more a volunteer gets involved in civility/conduct enforcement the more it can appear that s/he is taking sides or is non-neutral, so doing so should be a last resort and only if the incivility or conduct issues actually threaten to overwhelm or disrupt the conduct discussion. For that reason here's how I do it:

• If there are just some incidental or passing comments about conduct, I generally just ignore them.
• If they persist or become troublesome, I issue a general admonitions something like, "I want to remind all editors that incivility or discussion of user conduct will not be allowed here. Please wholly refrain from discussing other editors' motives, biases, conflicts of interest, skills, habits, competence, POV, POV-pushing, or anything having to do with them, personally, rather than the content in question." I do it in that form even if there's only one participant causing problems so as not to appear to be singling anyone out. I'll generally do that more than once, especially if the conduct issues ease off, then pick back up.
• If they become particularly troublesome and the general warnings don't stop them, I'll read the Riot Act, to wit: "In light of the ongoing incivility [or conduct allegations] I'm hereby invoking my authority under the Control of Mediation Policy to strikeout, collapse, or delete any further incivility or discussion of editor conduct here and, if necessary, to close this case if such measures are repeatedly needed."
• And then I do just that. I mercilessly start striking/collapsing/deleting. I prefer striking, as I've said above, but will follow that up with collapsing or deleting if it doesn't work and if that still doesn't work, and only as a last resort, I'll close the case.

At least that's how I do it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly my approach as well. Before coming to DRN editors have usually spent several day/weeks or even months rubbing up against each other and when they finally show up at our door their are naturally stressed, irritated and their views entrenched. One of the skills of a successful DRN volunteer is to move slowly and patiently and kindly through the moderation process. Moving slowly and very patiently helps to slow and calm down the participants. This is part of the art of dispute resolution. Also, as Tman says, we are not Admins, we are not WP cops and we are not here to enforce guidelines. A good DRN moderator moves slowly, easily and patiently. And they give the participants the benefit of the doubt and assume good faith and use the carrot much more often then the stick. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Questions about RFCs coming out of moderated discussion

I have two questions about procedure after moderated discussion decides that an RFC is the way to go forward. First, may the moderator then !vote on the RFC, or would that appear to compromise his or her previous neutrality? Second, if the moderator does not !vote, then after 30 days, may the moderator perform the close of the RFC, or would that also appear to compromise the neutrality of the moderated discussion. Just asking. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Being a moderator at DRN doesn't exclude you from any sort of constructive editing. A moderator has the impression of neutrality on this board. That is all.96.52.0.249 (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Practically speaking, and just my opinion, having a moderator !vote in the RFC would look odd ("you said you were neutral but this is what you were pushing for all along"). It would be much more valuable if the moderator guided and possibly closed the RFC. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with NeilN about it looking odd. And I wouldn't guide or close the RFC, either, unless the original parties expressly consent to that. I do think, however, that it's both acceptable and valuable to help them form the exact statement for the RFC and to even file it for them as a neutral party. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

That is what I have done with past RFCs, to file the RFC, because I have more confidence in my ability to word it neutrally than in the ability of the participants to word it neutrally. Once an RFC is worded non-neutrally, it often gets worse. What is "guiding" an RFC, anyway? I know what closing it is; I have closed RFCs. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

By "guiding" I meant to continue to be involved in the RFC to try to keep it on track or otherwise to supervise it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Closing of off-topic/unsuitable cases

Hi all,

Not to stomp on anyone's toes or anything (and I haven't observed this yet) but can I please ask in advance to not close any cases that might seem unsuitable for DRN? I'd like to take a look at them before closing them. Thanks :) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 14:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Are we permitted to insert a note that it appears to be premature/conduct dispute/incomplete on the project page, on the talk page, or wherever, or should we just leave alone until you look? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Here or my talk page is fine. But sometimes disputes that don't necessarily seem suitable for DRN might be if rephrased/looked at a different way, and I've not been here for some time. I don't think it will necessarily be exactly how it used to be, but I'd like to suss things out again so this is more a request so I can get back into the feel of things than anything else. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 14:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Fixing of unsuitably stated cases

I would like to ask what the policy is about one volunteer, not the coordinator, fixing a requested case that is unsuitably worded but is suitable for DRN. Should a volunteer go ahead and fix the case, or let the coordinator fix the case? (In the case in point, the name of the case was changed from the filing party's talk page to an article, but other filings have other easily fixable problems.) Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The Coordinator page says:

The DRN co-ordinator is a rotating volunteer position at the dispute resolution noticeboard. They act as an organiser and maintainer of the process. They don't hold any special authority or power over others, and serve only to organise the process in a more effective and efficient way, and act as a contact point for the community in general. Note that these tasks [see list on the Coordinator page are not exclusive to the coordinator. Any volunteer can do any of them at any time, it's just the coordinator's job to insure that they get done as needed.

So technically speaking any volunteer can open or close or adjust any case Steve has made a special request asked that volunteers let him be the one to make procedural closes. I think we should honor his request unless it becomes a hindrance and then we can discuss and adjust as needed. We try to work as a team lest we require our own DR case! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

We've lost our focus

I see lots of talk here on this page about procedure and guidelines but at the same time I see active cases in disarray. Not because of lack of policy but due to DRN volunteers not taking ownership for a case and giving it the thoughtfulness and care that it deserves. Case in point is this dispute.

• During the course of the dispute 5 DRN volunteers made comments but none of them identified themselves as the moderator of the case.
• There are two named parties. However, a third party (IP) joined the case and dominated the discussion but no one added them to the list of named parties.
• DRN volunteer BlusterBlaster did a good job of taking the lead in the discussion for several days but then they disappeared (his/her last post was 6 days ago).
• One of the two named parties was banned from WP a few days ago but the case remains open because the IP is "away from their computer" and wants a 5 day hold on the case.
• Meanwhile the filing party has not participated for 7 days.

These are not the signs of a well executed dispute resolution. This is at least the third time in recent weeks that a moderator has disappeared, without warning, in the middle of a case. In my experience this is a death knell for a DRN case as it never recovers and never regains its focus even after a new DRN volunteer takes the case. I'd like to suggest that we stop focusing on guidelines and procedural details and instead focus on the cases. Let each person focus on their own case. If they have questions or need advice they can discuss with a veteran volunteer (I named a few of the active ones earlier). Let's see what we can do to provide outstanding leadership and a moderated discussion that fosters compromise and at least partial resolution.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that we shouldn't discuss procedures as much. I do agree that we have had a problem with moderators disappearing, but I don't see how the two issues are really tied together. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

In fact, one or two of the issues that you are raising are really procedural issues. An editor entered the case, but was not added to the case. Also, an editor (same one) requested a 5-day hold. Perhaps we need guidance that cases should not be "held" for extended periods of time. In defense of the moderator, I think that he has been absent because he honored a possibly reasonable and possibly unreasonable request to put a "hold" on the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)\

I agree that we do need to stress the importance of volunteers following through on their cases. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Robert McClenon. While one can certainly point to DRN cases where the volunteer didn't handle things well, I could just as easily point out similar examples at ANI, Arbcom, and especially the various DR venues on meta where supposedly you can engage with the WMF about whether their actions are wise. I am not sure that the percentage of such examples is higher at DRN. I also agree with Robert McClenon about discussing procedural issues such as !voting on an RfC after closing a case and suggesting that it go to an RfC. We need to talk about what sort of impression that gives. My snap answer would be "helpful" but I can see how it could be seen as "non-neutral". --Guy Macon (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Volunteers who are newcomers at DRN, and especially if they're not that experienced at WP in general, are often very insecure about whether they're handling things well and if another volunteer steps into their case they take it as a rejection or questioning of their ability and they resolve their insecurity by locking up and/or disappearing. That's one of the reasons that I am exceptionally reluctant to step in, or even talk to them about what they're doing on their user talk page. Doing either of those things also weakens the disputants' confidence in them and may also interfere in the volunteer's scheme or plan for handling the case. I will only jump in or go to their talk page (or send email if they have it enabled, but many newcomers do not) if it is utterly clear that they're screwing up (or losing control on conduct issues, and I'll only do that if I'm the Coordinator at the time and identify myself as such when I do it) and that they're doing damage to either the case (or the best interests of the encyclopedia) or the DRN process in general. Newcomer volunteers also vanish because they don't realize just how much time and attention a case (and/or Wikipedia in general) demands of them, because they don't realize just how fractious a case can be and don't have the DRN or DR experience to know how to deal with it, because they're in over their heads on knowledge of policy, guidelines, and common practices, the false belief that every case has to come to a positive resolution, the false belief that most cases do come to a positive resolution, or (and an occasional experienced volunteer will vanish because of this, too) real world issues which spring up. But one thing that will drive them away quicker than anything is interfering with their management of the case. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Uh... for the record, I haven't made a comment on the Impalement case in some time because of the fact that the IP was away, and that there hasn't been any further developments or points that have been brought up by either the IP or the remaining named party. I suppose I can repeat my recommendations for how to proceed with the dispute, but since no one has really voiced a problem with what I said last week, it seemed a little redundant; I wanted to leave it to them to take the initiative to continue the conversation; I'd already pestered them a bit to continue on their respective talkpages before and I didn't want to be overzealous in doing so-- my recommendations still hold water to them, as far as I was ever made aware. I can always notify the two of them once more and try to get the ball rolling again. Work has picked up this week so I've been a little busy, so that may have been a bit of a factor in terms of my inactivity, I'll admit.

And as far as the holding of the case goes, when I asked about it no one seemed to object to me honoring that request, so I did it. If there was concern about the case not being handled correctly, and/or if I'd given the impression that I'd vanished off the face of the earth or somesuch, I'd have readily answered to a message or a ping or something before that conclusion was drawn. So... at its root, what is the concern with regards to what I'm doing, if I'm being cited as an example of how things aren't working? BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 15:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I've extended the Do Not Archive Until date to June 9 to give you a chance to get it going again if that's what you want to do. But though the final call is up to you, my recommendation would be not to extend it further than that unless it gets restarted and shows clear progress. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I haven't spoken to Keithbob, but let me apologize to BlusterBlaster for not noting that he had used your case as an example. Your handling of the Impalement case was not the problem he was really addressing, he was just using it as an example. And, frankly, I'd forgotten (and I'm sure he simply missed) our prior discussion about putting it on hold. The fact that there is so much activity here on the DRN talk page is contributing to this kind of oversight. You're doing fine, especially as a newcomer here, and I truly regret that you've taken some friendly fire on this one. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Good points everyone. I may not agree completely with everything that's been said but at least I've brought attention to the issue. Hopefully we can be a little more focused now on our individual cases and see them through a bit more successfully. Regarding BusterBlaster I said in my comment that "BlusterBlaster did a good job of taking the lead in the discussion for several days" so no criticism intended there. I was not aware that Buster was the moderator for that case. It wasn't clear to me from the case threads but maybe I missed something. My apologies as my intention was not to criticize or malign anyone but rather to bring up the general issue of giving focused and regular attention to the cases we each accept. I am grateful to all the volunteers and as a team I think we do great work. I just think things have gotten a bit sloppy lately but hopefully this discussion will help us to get back on track. Again thanks to all for the comments and input. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from here, no offense taken, just was a bit confused with it all - sorry for the late response, got pulled into an unexpected set of meetings these last couple of days and I haven't been able to respond to much on WP. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 15:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment, Complaint, Apology Accepted If Offered

I agree with the implication, regarding the three cases whose moderators disappeared or went inactive, that User:Keithbob's criticism was offered in good faith but was sort of misdirected. Keithbob complained that we had spent too much time discussing procedures and had let cases be partially abandoned. The editors who were discussing procedures were not the editors who should have been handling cases. I was one of the editors discussing procedures; I had also tried to rescue two cases. If Keithbob thinks that I should not have intervened or was somehow at fault, I would like to know how. If he thinks that my questions about procedures caused other editors to neglect their cases, I would like to hear that. I also agree that User:BlusterBlaster took unnecessary friendly fire when he was trying to handle a case, not abandoning it. Maybe I should have left this talk page alone; I don't know. Maybe I should have left Social Democrats alone; I don't know. Maybe I should have left Zeitgeist (film series) alone for what the parties have and have not listened to, but I was asked if I could handle it. I am not sure that anyone can keep those editors from winding up in Arbitration Enforcement. I think that Keithbob may have been associating two concurrent situations, a lot of talk page discussion, and drifting cases due to moderator neglect, and implying causality that is not there. If there is a slight apology for having directed a comment at the active volunteers that was meant for the inactive volunteers, apology accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Subpaging Zeitgeist (film series)

Hey all,

Couldn't help that this DRN is getting quite long - should we perhaps subpage it/move it elsewhere? Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 10:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that is a question about long DRN discussions in general. Some DRN discussions get very long, especially if they have more than two or three participants and there is significant disagreement. The Zeitgeist discussion isn't unique, although it is the longest one currently. I would like the opinion of User:TransporterMan on subpaging DRN discussions in general. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I almost wonder if it would be better to open these disputes on article talk pages. It preserves a record with the article, it allows normal editors of the article to contribute and/or watch easily, and it centralizes the discussion. That could just be me, though. Kharkiv07 (T) 19:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I will comment that one of the reasons why the Zeitgeist discussion is getting long is that I have sectioned the discussion, as I usually do, in order to minimize comments on contributors and to avoid back-and-forth spirals. I also see that the other two active discussions are starting to get long (although not as long as Zeitgeist). So this is a general question about long DRN discussions, and some of them get long. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

At one point some time ago (I can't exactly recall when), the idea of shifting cases over to the Mediation Committee when it was clear that cases were getting either too large, or unwieldy, was discussed. Subpaging ALL cases was also tried at one point, and frankly didn't work. Somewhat before your time (I think), there was the Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation setting where non-appointed mediators could take cases - it was closed down basically because DRN duplicated most of the function, and created a many-many relationship between volunteers and dispute participants (I did, and still do believe, that having multiple volunteers handle a case is better than having one go it alone). Perhaps it is time to discuss the idea of referring cases to MedCom again? Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Three things: (1) @Kharkiv07: Note that mediating the discussion at the article talk page loses the protections afforded by the Control of Mediation Policy, see footnote #1 to the policy, but if the discussion isn't too fractious, then that may not be a big deal. (2) As for subpaging, subpaged cases ought to be moved into a regular archive, in my opinion, once they're finished, so they're easier to find, so that's an additional procedural knowledge burden on the volunteer. Frankly, I'm fine with them staying on the main page; we've got plenty of navigation tools at the top of the page, but I'm not opposed to subpaging them, either. (3) As for referrals to MedCom, I think it's a good idea in some cases, but has to be determined on a case by case basis. Best regards (and thanks to Steve for taking Coord), TransporterMan (TALK) 12:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with point 1. Point 2 is less about navigation and more about participants that are parties to a different dispute, if one case is getting 95% of edits, theirs may be lost on their watchlist. Agree referral to MedCom should be case by case and possibly a discussion between the DRN coordinators and MedCom chair (though when you were both, you could be judge, jury and executioner there eh, heheh...) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 13:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I have a comment on subpaging of cases. The comment is made that, if discussion is subpaged, the subpaged cases should be moved into a regular archive, which puts an additional burden on the volunteer. Why do they need to moved into a regular archive? Why not just create a subpage with a title, and, when discussion is finished, delete the link to the subpage from the main page, and leave the subpage alone? There could be an index, but is there a reason why there would need to be an index? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I have a few thoughts about the idea of referring cases to the MedCom. First, I can see that sometimes a volunteer might, on looking at whether to accept a case in the first place, suggest that it is a sufficiently complex case that it could go "out of the gate" to the MedCom. Second, however, I have very seldom seen a case that turned out after discussion to be making progress, but making progress at a pace that would benefit from MedCom handling. What more often happens is either that the case fails, or that compromise is achieved, or that one or more RFCs are published. Third, would there be some rule about when a case should go to the MedCom? Would it be reasonable to say that after two to three weeks, a volunteer should probably refer the case to the MedCom? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I also have a comment on the comment about multiple volunteers. I think that may be a good idea on long or complex cases, but only with one of them as primary, and that the lead volunteer might sometimes do well to ask for other volunteers to chime in. Comments? [unsigned comment]

I think we have to stay on track here. What perceived problem are we trying to solve? The alleged problems seem to be varied:

• Participants can't follow their DRN case on their watchlist because one long case is getting "95% of the edits".
  • Are they complaining about this?
• Long cases create navigation problems on the DRN page
  • True to some extent but we do have a menu at the to of DRN that takes you directly to your case. This could also be eliminated by the DRN coordinator hatting sections after they are completed.
• Some cases are too complicated for DRN and should be referred to Mediation
  • There may be some truth to this. But I don't think we need to change anything just start referring complex cases to mediation. The DRN header reads: This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution and get assistance to the right place. If a case has many participants or several issues then a referral to Mediation is a good idea. I would suggest that it be discussed here to get consensus rather than making a unilateral judgement and closing the case.

Personally I'm not in favor of moderating on the article talk pages or creating subpages for long cases as that circumvents our guideline to handle small issues.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

And about multiple volunteers handling the same case and having a mailing list: I cannot see how having multiple volunteers on a case can be effective without the volunteers coordinating their plans and positions and their "take" on the case. To do that in the case page or here on the talk page simply shows your hand and allows the parties to anticipate your moves, to do it offline smacks of meatpuppetry and cabal-ism. As Keithbob points out, we're supposed to be dealing with things simply here: there just shouldn't be any cases which require multiple volunteers, cases that complex should be sent to RFC or to MedCom. That brings up the mailing list idea. Everyone needs to remember that at the end of the day, we're just nothing but garden-variety Wikipedia editors here and the community takes a dim view (see here and here for examples) of cliqueishness and in-group behavior which has caused projects with good intentions to be shut down. A mailing list, particularly if it's not public (and whether a talk subpage or a public mailing list, you can be sure that parties to cases will be checking it), immediately raises suspicions here. We don't need it. We can do just fine on this page. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Zeitgeist follow-up

This is a follow-up to the comment that perhaps Zeitgeist was getting too long and should be subpaged. I have closed the Zeitgeist (film series) issue. I will comment on the three concerns that were raised. First, it was said that long cases complicate navigation, and I agree that they complicate navigation by scrolling, but that clicking on links works, so that isn't a real problem. (If the project page became so big that it posed technical limitations to small mobile browsers, that would be a different concern, but I haven't heard that concern stated here.) Second, the question about one case getting nearly all of the edits complicating watchlist use has been mentioned. It is true that subpaging all (not some) discussions would facilitate watchlist use. That is a question about case structure in general, not about a few long cases. Third, some cases are too complicated for DRN and should go to MedCom. I agree, but Zeitgeist was not such a case. Formal mediation is sometimes the best way to facilitate compromise, especially when there are multiple specific issues. There was no possibility of compromise in this case. The divisive issue was whether to reverse the merge and split the article; there was no possibility of compromise. In this case, I think that what was required was for the moderator to be bold in identifying what the issues were, without trying to be reckless and impose a solution. At least that is my opinion. I don't see how mediation could have worked differently. Those are my afterthoughts. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I think your appraisal is pretty close. I won't get into why no compromise is possible but suffice it to say the article is and was under attack by the subjects advocates many of whom seem to be remarkable quick studies of intricate wiki lawyering. The subject should probably not have been opened the way it was. It emboldened the true to the Zeitgeist people to make the very basis of the case a diatribe against certain editors. That was a critical mistake then since it was ever and ever repeated that it should be about content not editors. So it failed partly because it should not have been taken seriously as it did not meet the criteria of this board. Kudos anyway to Robert McClenon who took pity on it and tried after the fact. Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The reason why no compromise was possible is simply that inherently no compromise was possible. There could be one article, or two articles. I didn't have an option to propose of one-and-one-half articles. Sometimes compromise is not just not feasible, but not possible. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

A Few More Thoughts

I have a few miscellaneous comments after the recent comments.

First, I see that the instructions for moderators have been revised to state that one check one's own availability before opening a case, be available daily, and let the participants know if one will not be available daily. That is good. I would also suggest that volunteers should be ready to state what frequency of feedback they want from participants.

Second, based on recent experience and discussion, if one volunteer has advice for a volunteer who has opened a case, they should provide it on the volunteer's user talk page, not on the project page and not here.

Third, based on recent experience, if a case is waiting to be opened and a volunteer has questions about it, it appears that the questions should be asked on another volunteer's user talk page. Asking questions here about an existing case does not work well. The other parties have this project talk page watchlisted, and are likely to join in, which gets the discussion decentralized. (That is why I wanted a less public communication forum. I can understand the concerns about transparency, but asking here is likely to wind up with involved comments when one is asking for uninvolved comments.)

Fourth, User:Guy Macon has mentioned the perception that cases should be resolved. It is true that most cases do not get "Resolved". Should that be stated somewhere? At least, volunteers need to understand that most of their cases will not be "Resolved", and it should not reflect on the volunteer that they could not resolve the case. It should not, for that matter, reflect on a volunteer that their case was "Failed". The failure was that of the editors, not of the volunteer. While some cases can be Resolved by compromise, one reason that cases come here is that one or another editor is stubborn. Another reason is that compromise may be logically impossible. You can't compromise on splitting an article. Either do it, or do it not.

Fifth, do User:Steven Zhang or User:TransporterMan have suggestions as to what the other volunteers should do if it appears that the moderator of a case isn't following it?

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Point by point: First is a good suggestion. Second, as you can see from my post above (and for the reasons I stated there), I disagree: volunteers should usually keep their advice to themselves on individual cases unless something is really getting messed up. Third, is the flip side to your Second point, and is on the whole probably a good idea, but is also fraught with the same kind of problems as giving unsolicited advice. Disputants watch contribution pages, too. Fourth, no, let's not rain on our parade before it starts; saying something like that would discourage people from even trying here. Fifth, take your concern to the coordinator and let the coordinator adjudge whether it's justified to interfere. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

For the past few years our approach at DRN has been simple. Volunteers look at the cases, they pick one they like and they see it through and they close it when it's concluded. If they need some technical assistance they inquire here. If they don't understand a case or don't feel comfortable with it then they leave it for someone else. This noticeboard has been running successfully for a couple of years with that simple, informal approach. I'm in favor of continuing to keep things simple and avoiding excess bureaucracy and micro management. For me the focus is on helping people in an informal, common sense way, rather than devising and enforcing rules and procedures.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Keithbob. Of course sooner or later we are going to get a disruptive volunteer, but even then I don't think a set of rules would be the answer. The existing volunteers don't need them and the new, disruptive volunteer will either wiki-lawyer around them or just ignore them. If we ever get a disruptive volunteer we should just let our coordinator take it to ANI, under the basic principle that DRN only handles article content disputes and ANI only handles user behavior disputes. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

For me, consensus is important. That said, as the original creator of DRN, I'd vehemently oppose any strict rules being imposed on volunteers. Editing Wikipedia isn't an obligation and DRN (and dispute resolution) is generally a thankless job (though I thank you all for the work you've done over the years - if we met we'd definitely have a few rounds of drinks on me (or soda, if that's your thing)) - but we have to ackonwledge that for some they will have to come and go, or get overwhelmed. We need to support them where we can and keep an eye on these cases, especially for our newer volunteers, as attrition can be a factor and if supported and managed well can be a positive. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 05:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Case Status template potential change

Recently there was a inquiry on my talk page about how to make the case status template a little easier to read with respect to the time representation in the template. I poked around and did a one off attempt here. I asked for where the consensus to make this change to the bot process was and hadn't heard anything back.

Question: Do we want to have the DRN Clerk bot process changed so that we put the {{Time ago}} template around the Date/Time so that users can see the relative difference in time? Hasteur (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary, as far as I'm concerned. If my subtraction skills happen to be impaired at any given point in time, I always have my fingers and toes. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It was me that made the suggestion, and I disagree. The purpose of the change is not for us, but for laypeople. Someone that doesn't frequent here often (or someone rather busy, like me) might open DRN and see the case status template, and go, oh, thats not been looked at by a volunteer for 3 days, I'll weigh in" rather than having to look at the full timestamp for opened versus last edited. I'm not sure why it was removed in the first place, tbh. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 14:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I should clarify: I think it unnecessary, but I'm not opposed to it. I'm fine with it either way. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Unseen Character

I am confused. I see that User:Steven Zhang has marked the Unseen character issue as needing attention. Does that mean that it needs a moderator? I thought that Steven Zhang either was the moderator or was discussing with another moderator. I am willing to take it on (since Eurofighter is at an impasse and will have to be closed in one of two ways), but only if I won't be stepping on the toes of another volunteer. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No, someone else did that. It's fine as it is now. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 15:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean that someone else is moderating it? That is fine, but I don't see who the moderator is. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

If you, Steven Zhang, are moderating it, could you please remove the Needs Attention flag? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Osgoode Hall Law School

Is this case still on track? The moderator, User:Atsme has not commented for 5 days. Atsme, I see you are on WP today. Hows the case going? Do you need any help or support? Let us know. :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Keithbob - I posted reminders on the TP of the 3 involved editors just the other day because the thread had become stale. RPoD responded, the OP responded, but Orangmike has not. I have not changed my position with regards to my suggestions but if there is no active dispute, what more can we do? The OP's position is to leave the list as is after removal was suggested because of NPOV, UNDUE and GNG issues. I am certainly open to suggestions but short of an editor making a bold edit to remove the noncompliant list, there doesn't appear to be an active dispute. --Atsme^📞📧 19:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Very astute work on the reminders. My suggestion would be to now put a note on the case page saying that you asked all participants to rejoin the discussion on XYZ day and that no one has responded in X days (or just one person responded whatever the situation etc.) and that if editors don't join the discussion in the next 24-48hrs that you will be closing the case.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done Case was closed. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Objection to Robert McClenon's participation in Supercarrier

According to our rules at the top of the main page, "If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute." I, as an editor, object to Robert McClenon's further participation in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Supercarrier, due to this erroneous (as to the inadequacy of the discussion and his evaluation of Nick Thorne's comments) and mean-spirited (telling editors what they "need to" do and his comments upon Nick Thorne's comments) edit. I would ask that he self-revert that edit and indicate here that he will not be further involved in that case. If he does not choose to do so, I would solicit the comments of the DRN community. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I am willing to recuse from taking that case simply to avoid the appearance of impropriety, but I would appreciate having a comment sent to my talk page explaining what I did wrong. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

More generally, I am willing to have comments about my involvement be on my talk page so that the editors with disputes are less likely to be distracted by them. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with TransporterMan here. I do not feel the tone of your comment is suitable, and ask that you remove the comment and withdraw from that discussion. I would also like to remind everyone of the volunteering guidelines - remember that we are here to help Wikipedians resolve their disputes at times their tempers could quite easily be flared. It's not necessary to moderate the board with an iron fist -cut them a bit of slack now and then. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 15:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Didn't we just decide that if a participant objects to a DRN volunteer taking a case he should bring it up here but if another DRN volunteer objects he shuld bring it up on the talk page of the DRN volunteer who is being discussed first? That would seem to be the least disruptive way of doing things. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it would have been less disruptive to bring it to my talk page. Thank you, User:Guy Macon. In any case, I have agreed not to handle that case. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: If my intention had been only to criticize Robert's action, I would indeed have — agreement or no agreement (because, though I don't think we actually reached any such agreement, that's ordinarily the right thing to do) — put it on his user talk page or perhaps even in email if Robert had email enabled, but this was a formal objection to his further participation in that case and the only proper place for such an objection is either on the DRN main page, which is actually the most proper place, or here on the DRN talk page. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

(I think)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Case Moved to Another Noticeboard

With agreement from two editors and no comments from the other editors, I moved a case from here to the original research noticeboard. Can someone take a look at the closure and see whether that was done correctly? I am assuming that this is a general close, not a resolution or a failure, because we don't know how it will proceed at NORN. I haven't seen this done much, but this looked like a case where, since the only issues identified had to do with the synthesis guidelines, it appeared that it might benefit from having other editors who are experienced with the guidelines look and comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it looks fine. Calling it "moving" it is a bit odd, because that sounds like the proceedings here are going to continue there when in fact they're really only going there for an opinion (which I hope that they get; responses can be pretty slow or uncertain at that noticeboard), but that's being pretty picky. As for it being a general close, I think that's fine, too. Unless the NOR issue was a very close question (which it may have been, I haven't looked), I would have probably been tempted to offer to give them, or simply given them, my own opinion about it, but if I wasn't sure about the proper result I very well might have done just what you've done. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It was a close call. The proponent's argument why it was not original research seemed sound. The opponent's argument that it was original research seemed sound. I didn't want to decide, especially because I didn't want to have my opinion second-guessed, so I didn't offer one. As far as your statement that they will only get an opinion there, anything that we say is also purely advisory, unless we start an RFC, which is binding. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

By opinion, I simply meant that they won't get mediation or DRN-type processing there, not that our opinions are anything more than opinions. But that was a good call on your part. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Email

Should there be a stated guideline strongly encouraging (if not requiring) volunteers to enable email? This will among other things permit off-wiki advice (since on-wiki advice tends to attract combative editors). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'd encourage having email enabled. Parties involved may at times have a legitimate reason to contact a volunteer offline about a case, and it can be a valuable feedback or coordination tool, though I would dissuade use that may give the sense that there is a cabal or anything. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 15:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I would have said, "Do you mean that there isn't a cabal?", but on the Internet, no one understands the sarcasm. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

In the early days of DRN (and a lot of the DR improvement work) there were a few core users involved, myself being the one spearheading a lot of it, and a lot of discussion did happen over email. Things are a bit different now, hence the preference to on-wiki discussions where possible, and my mention here :) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 16:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreeing to participate

Similar to the way MEDCOM does it in requests, should we have participates have to explicitly declare if they'll be participating in the case or not? Some participates seem to just give a statement, and then don't participate or don't want to participate. The amount of clear participation is nice to have when volunteering and/or when closing a case. Kharkiv07 (T) 11:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. At MedCom, it's there to ensure a case can be accepted. DRN is deliberately more informal and lightweight (and I'd like to think we're more flexible with the rules.) If people decide not to participate, that's their call. As volunteers, we should come to the best resolution possible with the involved parties. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 14:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I personally think its a good idea at the beginning of the case to formalize who is participating. Formalize means they show up and give a summary. That's a strong indication they are going to participate and they usually do. It may be that not everyone listed as a participant by the filing party gives a summary. But if most of them do and the participants feel it will be valuable to continue with DRN anyway, then we proceed with what we have. I think its a good idea to formalize that consensus (the consensus to go ahead with only some of the participants) otherwise the DRN discussion will be a waste of time if its not going to be given some weight and respect back at the the talk page after the DRN case closes.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Eurofighter Status

The Eurofighter case is showing in the listing as New. I tried to set it to a general close because it was moved to WP:NORN. Did I do something wrong, or the templates fragile again? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It's still showing as new. Can someone please check whether I did something wrong? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert, When you change the case status it should show up as changed right away on the case itself. However, it can take several hours for the bot to update the colored summary chart at the top of the DRN page. That may have been the situation here. Hope that's helpful. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It was still showing up as New 24 hours later. Now the problem has gone away because the case has been archived. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Closing a Case or Collapsing a Thread

When either closing a case or boxing, hatting, or collapsing a thread, please check the result to be sure that nothing unexpected has happened. Typos in the use of the templates can cause bizarre effects. They are easy enough to fix after seeing what they are. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we've all accidentally botched that a time or two. We should be careful but we should look out for each other also and fix accidental mistakes. Thanks for your help in this area, Robert.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. My point is that, with templates, it is easy to make accidental mistakes, and it is easier to fix one's own mistakes than to fix the mistakes of others, because the person making the edit knows, first, what he or she was trying to do, and, second, what it looked like before making the edit. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Technical problem

When I click the "Request dispute resolution", that opens Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request, which can not be edited. What am I doing wrong? Debresser (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, I came looking for a place where I can ask a few editor to give their uninvolved opinions on a longstanding dispute. Like a 3rd opinion, but a few of them preferably. I do not mean to open a separate discussion, but rather invite a few editors to have a look at a talkpage discussion which is already ongoing. Where can I best ask for such a thing. Debresser (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser:, there's no need for editing the page 'Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request', rather, there are two clickable buttons which say 'Yes, it has.' and 'Not yet.', which will lead you to a descriptive editable page. Don't you see those buttons? 2) You maybe looking for Wikipedia:Requests for comment, where non-involved editors will comment on the dispute, and less complex issues can be solved by seeking third opinion in Wikipedia:Third opinion. Regards --JAaron95 (Talk) 12:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there a specific article that you would like a few editors to look at? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jaaron95 Actually, I don't see those buttons.

@Robert McClenon Actually, I would like to have some input, from at least a few editors, at Talk:Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson#Didn.27t_he_run_over_somebody.3F. Debresser (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: Seems to be an issue with the browser. Try changing your browser. If the problem still persists, you may get some help from WP:TECHPUMP. Regards --JAaron95 (Talk) 21:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, you're right. With my Firefox I can't see the page, with Internet Explorer I can. Debresser (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Glad it worked --JAaron95 (Talk) 09:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Instructions in Small Type

There is an instruction in small type at the top of the Discussion section for each case that reads: "Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary." It seems to be usually ignored, because in multiple cases recently the parties have continued discussion before a volunteer has opened the case. In one case it got out of hand and the coordinator had to hat it. In other cases, it just isn't the way we are supposed to work. Maybe it should be put in regular type or bold face, because I think that parties are ignoring it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point Robert. I think the problem lies in the wording which is too wishy-washy. I would take this suggestion a step further and amend the sentences to something like this:

Participants are asked to avoid discussion until the case has been formally opened by a volunteer. In the meantime you may continue discussion on the article talk page as needed. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Case status codes

If you change the case status template and the case status doesn't change after you hit save, it may be you are using the wrong code. Some of the case status codes are not intuitive so I'm listing them here as a reference for everyone, including myself:

• open = In progress
• stale = Needs attention
• closed = General close. See comments for reasoning.
• failed = Closed as failed
• resolved = Dispute resolved successfully

If there is no code indicated in the case status template (located at the top of every case) then the default status is: New. I notice that the stale/needs attention code is missing from our DRN handbook. There were prior discussions about whether that status was useful to the board or not. I think the consensus was its useful but not when its automated by the bot to come on after X number of days as was the case before. If that is an accurate summary of the consensus then I'll add it to the DRN handbook.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Q12 Question

Should something be included in Q12 of the FAQ to indicate that there should have been substantial recent discussion? A thread was just closed because most of the discussion had been extensive but had been more than a year ago. While I think that the close was appropriate, I would have read Q12 to permit discussion to be opened, so maybe Q12 needs clarifying. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

We could just add the word "recent" to the boldfaced text on the main page. Just a thought. DonIago (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

One Editor Blocked

In one thread that is waiting for a moderator, one of the editors has been given a two-week block for edit-warring on that article. Am I correct in assuming that, when a volunteer (not me) takes it up, discussion can go forward without the blocked editor? That is, am I correct that the block of one editor doesn't prevent issues between other editors from being discussed here? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Which thread? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Supercarrier. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

They are also waiting for another participant who has not been on WP for a while to return. It's up to the DRN volunteer who takes the case and the participants how they want to handle the blocked editor issue. Any case can go forward if the participants and volunteer feel it will be useful.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Starting the discussion 'Supercarrier' without Antiochus the Great

I see that the discussions at DRN are normally closed within a week's time. It's almost a week since the case 'supercarrier' has been filed and the user Antiochus haven't yet added his summary and his contributions show, he last edited on 8 June 2015. As participation in the discussion isn't compulsory, wouldn't it be appropriate to start the case without Antiochus? Regards --JAaron95 (Talk) 19:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

A valid question User:Jaaron95. At present the DRN board is waiting for the User:Antiochus the Great to leave a summary statement. He/She has not edited WP since June 8th and the DRN notice wasn't placed on their page until June 11th. So it would seem prudent to wait a few more days. However, I'll leave that decision to either the DRN coordinator User:Steven Zhang or the DRN volunteer who eventually steps forward to formally take the case.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree - people go off the grid occasionally. If they have a significant role in the dispute, I'd be reluctant to proceed without them. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Volunteers may investigate the role of the particular editor in the dispute. I can assure you that the participation/involvement of the editor in the dispute is trivial and leaving the editor behind won't affect the proceedings here. @TransporterMan:Pinging the current volunteer in case he didn't see. Regards --JAaron95 (Talk) 09:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Their number of edits in the discussion may have been small but that does not mean they were trivial. We should wait until he either makes his summary or indicated he does not wish to be involved. - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Keithbob, Steven Zhang, and TransporterMan: (Pinging volunteers to notify the existence of the case 'Supercarriers') It's been more than a week since I filed the case and it is not yet opened, stating that the user Antiochus has failed to respond. To be sure, the editor is not involved in the dispute, rather, he had pointed out his views on the dispute between myself and Nick Thorne. That doesn't make him 'necessary' for the case to be opened. I already made my reply on suggesting the volunteers to assess the role of the editor in the dispute, which I think may/may not have gone unnoticed. I've kept WP:DRN on my watchlist and have been visiting the page every now and then and I'm tired of doing that for the past 8 days. I recommend we move without Antiochus. If the volunteers still insist on the participation of the editor, I want this case to be closed (As I opened it) and I'll remove the page Supercarrier from my watchlist and will make no more edits/disputes on the page (even the current dispute will be disavowed) and it's associated topics. Regards --JAaron95 (Talk) 17:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Case has been withdrawn. Thank you for all of your help. Regards--JAaron95 (Talk) 18:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

List of Cases

We have what may be a technical anomaly with the list of cases. The list of cases at the top of this page (and also at the top of Steven Zhang's talk page) does not list the Shang Dynasty dispute or the (declined) request to delete a subpage. If the list is maintained by a bot, maybe someone should ask the bot maintainer to check on the bot and the list. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Hasteur: Eh? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Editors, Robert McClenon, and TransporterMan: Check the Last update timestamp of the template (13:00, 15 June 2015 UTC) and compare it to the two cases you've identified (16:26 15 June 2015 UTC and 13:17, 16 June 2015 UTC). I won't be able to get to the bot to see what's hapening for at least annother ~8 hrs. If you absolutely need an update now, feel free to update the template yourself and to bump the update time. Hasteur (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I bumped the template to prove updates, but this is a stopgap untill I can find out what's wrong. Hasteur (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x2 combo! This is just the observation of someone not very good with code, but I think it has to do with a technical issue that's been reported at the VP with a ton of bots, can't remember the thread though; the switch to HTTPS protocol only for WP earlier this month broke the coding for a lot of them and the same may have happened to the DRN clerk bot... BlusterBlaster ^beep_boop 16:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It is okay for now. Thank you. I think that User:BlusterBlaster may be right. This may be a case where the developers implemented something that seemed like a good idea, but that had an unanticipated side effect. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@RobertMcClenon, BusterBlaster, and TransporterMan: A'ha... The problem was in the Kashmir splice over from ANI that I corrected here. Because the "section" was a L2 heading, the bot was choking onthat step. I presume this closes out the issue. Hasteur (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Good detective work, Hasteur, many thanks. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. This illustrates again, as did my previous comment about a collapse of a case, that the system, both in terms of how it displays cases to humans and how the bot handles things, is sensitive to small details, such as typos in templates and errors in the number of equal signs. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI: Tool labs is in meltdown currently. DRN Clerk Bot is ran from tool labs, ergo the DRN Clerk Bot is not running. Hasteur (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Is the bot working again? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

[3] We report, you decide. Hasteur (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

What Can We Do to Help Question

One of the questions on the case opening form asks what we (DRN) can do to help. Often the response there seems to indicate a lack of understanding of what DRN does, such as to freeze the page or to provide a ruling. I have generally ignored this answer, figuring that if the issue has had adequate discussion, then accepting it is probably good even if the participants don't initially understand the process. Do other volunteers agree? ----- unsigned comment

Yes, most participants are here for their first time and don't understand DRN or dispute resolution in general. Feel free to educate them and refer them to the top of our DRN page and WP:DR and WP:DRR for more information.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Admin Board

One editor in the Murder, She wrote, case has said twice that they think that an "admin broad" will be needed. I assume that they mean an admin board to make some sort of a content ruling. I have advised that if other editors don't want to discuss a content issue, a Request for Comments is the usual approach. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

We should refer them to WP:DR and WP:DRR. Then they can educate themselves and decide what they want to do next. As experienced editors we can make a suggestion but it is up to them what they want to do. Also, while we are not [on] the topic, I don't think its our role to follow the disputed issue/editors around to other noticeboards or back to the article talk page unless we perceive some egregious violation of WP policy. We are just plain vanilla, everyday editors just like them. DRN volunteers have no special authority on the DR board or outside of it. I have seen some comments on this talk page to the effect that editors in a dispute are incapable of creating a neutral RfC and that the DRN volunteer should create the RfC for them. That is not indicated anywhere in our DRN guidelines and it is a bad faith, condescending attitude towards our DRN participants. Yes there have been, and will be, many mal-formed RfCs on Wikipedia but there been thousands of well formed RfC's created by dispute participants as well. People learn by doing it wrong and then getting it right. Let's empower them to do it themselves and learn from their WP mistakes just as we have.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Two cases awaiting a moderator

Hi, User:Guy Macon, User:Montanabw and others....... there are two case marked Needs Attention that are awaiting a moderator. If you have any time your help would be greatly appreciated. I'm tied up with 2+ cases at MedCom and mentoring an editor in a case at DRN. Thanking you in advance!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw has taken one case. Thank you!! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for Thread Review

Normally new threads that are not ready for dispute resolution for any of various reasons are closed by User:Steven Zhang or User:TransporterMan. TransporterMan is busy and Steven Zhang has had a death in the family. Can another volunteer please look over some of the New threads and close those that need closure. One of them has had the statement struck by the filer, which appears to be a withdrawal of the request. In one of them, the requesting editor has been indeffed as a sock. In another of them, the other editor has been indeffed as a sock. One of them appears to be headed for AFD rather than DRN. Thanks for help in closing requests that need closing. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

TransporterMan has posted on his talk page that he is off WP till June 28th. Has Steve given some notice that he is not available? I don't see anything on his user page.

I'll take a look at the case page later today and do some housekeeping as needed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASteven_Zhang&type=revision&diff=667941052&oldid=667938458. I posted to User:Hasteur, who listed himself as a closer of zombie threads, and he has weighed in at the four threads in question. Thank you for any further thread review. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see the banner now at the top of his page. Thanks. I'll let Hasteur handle the threads.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I used to come in to help strong arm difficult disputes to a resolution or to push them to a referral to another board. I've statused and given most a countdown clock to help encourage disputants to get to the point and get the posts off our board. Also, did we do away with the concept of a DRN co-ordinator? Hasteur (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

No, Steven Zhang is the current coordinator but he is away due to a family tragedy. Would you like to step into the coordinator role until he returns?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the assistance, User:Hasteur. By the way, is there any particular context to your reference to closing zombie threads? In general, a folkloric zombie is something that ought to be dead but hasn't been properly killed or buried. Is that essentially the context? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. We tended to be a lot more forceful with respect to threads that kept moving around but not getting any progress or discussions that were open more than 7 days with no real end in sight in keeping with our "Light hearted dispute resolution" mission. Hasteur (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I see. Those were threads that were once alive. The ones that I was asking you about are ones where there is a question about whether they were stillborn or should have been aborted. (Threads are not humans, and religious objections to abortion do not apply.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Threads that are not ripe for DRN, I believe, any editor can show the door to, using the same strategy as zombie threads. If it's clear it's a conduct dispute (or the reporting disputant is trying to get us to issue a binding ruling/forum-shoping like the "CeCe Peniston song" currently on the page) it's been my understanding that any volunteer could say "No, it's not yet ripe for DRN". Hasteur (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The current coordinator had requested that he review any new threads and close them, rather than the previous practice that any volunteer could show the door to those threads. You (Hasteur) refer to threads that "kept moving around but not getting any progress or discussions that were open more than 7 days with no real end in sight". Should it be primarily the role of the volunteer moderator to decide when those threads were going on too long? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, in this case, the problematic threads were not so much "not ripe for DRN" as overripe or spoiled, because two of the editors were blocked, one was being withdrawn, and one involved conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to those who kept an eye on things while I had to step away. I will be resuming my work on the cases I had taken on and keeping an eye on the DRN threads. Regarding the above, any volunteer can close a case that they've been working on if a) They feel the issue is resolved b) The issue has dragged on too long and DRN isn't going to get the issue anywhere. My request was solely regarding new cases, I'm fine for other volunteers to review them and suggest it might not be ready for DRN, just ask that I be given the chance to look it over first before it's closed out. Sometimes showing people the door will be needed at DRN, but I don't want to slam the door in someone's face if they genuinely need help. If it seems a genuine good-faith request, I'd lean towards not just saying "Not ready for DRN" but explain techniques and tactics for them to resolve it on the talk page - (self mediation does work!). After all we are here to help and educate - teach a man to fish, etc etc. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 06:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back Steve and thanks for your comments. I would add that while levels of experience may vary amongst volunteers there are no special roles or titles. From time to time we are shorthanded and we may ping a DRN volunteer or two and ask them to lend a hand. It does not mean that they have any special role, ability or authority and we should refrain from assigning ourselves titles like "specialist" as no such title or role exists. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Checking out for the night - be back on in 8 hours (since its now midnight here)

@TransporterMan: @Keithbob: @Robert McClenon: just in case things go crazy, FYI. Since I do need to sleep now and then. Contrary to what some believe, I'm only human. (and boy, that MWOT i just wrote on a DR thread - I've not done that in years! 14:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven Zhang (talk • contribs) 14:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)