Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Time to close DRN?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi all. I first founded DRN back in June 2011, and I think it's had a good run over that time. But I wonder if it's still effective. Back then, success rate on DRN was quite high and we had a good amount of volunteers. Nowadays, it seems we only have a handful, with one user doing most of the work {hats off to Robert for holding down the fort). That said, success seems quite low. DRN closes disputes for three reasons, successful (resolved successfully), failed (clearly unresolved) and general close (neither successful or unsuccessful, often procedural close due to inactivity/unsuitable request/incorrect forum).

I've done some digging, and here's the stats for this year: 208 cases filed, 8% (16) failed, 6 (3%) were successfully resolved, and the other 186 (89%) were closed for other reasons.

I'm hoping to get input from members of the community here. DRN was once a useful process with many volunteers, but I worry that it might have become too process-oriented and strict, and wonder how much value it's adding. What can we do to improve the process, or if nothing else, what dispute resolution alternatives do we have? Steven Crossin 05:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose closure. Even if very few cases are resolved, the existence of this forum is useful for dragging cases away from WP:ANI, where they are likely otherwise to end up, resulting in heat and no light (as opposed to little heat and little light for cases that don't belong here). It is true that we have a shortage of active volunteers, but Wikipedia has a shortage of active administrators and active volunteers at NPP and active everything to help stop the spam. It isn't clear what the filing party is proposing in place of DRN. It is true that, now that we are known to be a place where disputes occasionally get resolved, most of the disputes that get filed here are ones that never should have come here. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:, I wish you'd actually read my statement before turning this into a vote. First, the heading "Time to close DRN?" was a question, and the only area that such an idea was mentioned. Secondly, I also asked for suggestions and feedback on what we can do to improve the process, I've got people opposing below who appear to not even have read what I've said. I'd disagree with the argument that DRN's success has never been there, since I created DRN, and implemented changes to it as part of my Wikimedia community fellowship back in 2012, at that time, [rate for DRN (before any changes were implemented) - was 47%], and we handled 42 cases in that one month. So, - actually resolving cases was both possible, but also very common. I'd argue that the structure of DRN nowadays is one of the reasons that it's effectiveness is limited - it's far too rigid, and the style of having each party only comment in their own section I believe doesn't foster effective discussion, and should only generally be reserved for the most complex of cases where parties are clearly going at each other, and not run of the mill stuff. I'd jump back on as coordinator here, but I think, in my opinion, that my approach to resolving disputes is vastly different (but I feel effective) and am not sure if my contributions here are still desired - I must say waking up this morning to see my request for comments on how to improve DRN drowned out by pure opposes (while not even addressing my comments) has rubbed me the wrong way quite a bit, so I guess there's the "why bother" thought in my head, too. Steven Crossin 19:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per Robert McClennon, while we may not be as active as other boards, I would argue that this is less because of our faults, and more due to the either the low number of disputes where no party is obviously at fault, or else due to people's speed to drag things to ANI, or other notice board like OR or Fringe. By being "selective" (in terms of what we require before accepting a case, or even that we accept cases at all.) in the cases we pick, we don't overlap that much with others, except for with the mediation committee, which is the formal wing of dispute mediation. We work a role where neither party is neccisarily at fault, unlike OR or ANI, which makes it take much longer, and the mediation is much harder. The role we do is invaluble, unless you are suggesting a reform or else an entire paradigm shift like when mediation cabal became DRN, I don't see any need to end or change it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose closure. The above statistics should be reworked. First we need percentage of misplaced/misfiled cases -- cases where the filer clearly did not read the requirements for filing. Then we should calculate the success/fail/other percentages of only that proportion that was not misplaced/misfiled. We also should re-open the conversation about [A] advertising for more volunteers, and [B] dealing with the fact that we have had zero support from anyone with the skills to examine our workflow and automate parts of it -- including the possibility of hiring someone. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Guy Macon:, perhaps a bot that will check any new filing at the DRN for words that suggest it shouldn't be filed their, like the "pick a winner" of a recent case. Or else, this option isn't very good because it could dissuade people from using DRN, you could have to pass through a course like WP Adventure that tells you how to do it (since it appears roughly half of the filers read it.), or else we could have a "wizard" like image upload wizard, that would give a step by step, more so than instructions, but with you clicking options and filling in slots much like image creator wizard. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Guy Macon:, I'd be keen to reopen the discussion on the points you bring up. As for the workflow, where do you see areas for improvement. I coded a lot of the wizard, so I can make changes where needed. Steven Crossin 19:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose this board is still active and useful. I think the filer misunderstands the purpose of the noticeboard: it is not to necessarily "solve" cases but instead to foster a spirit of discussion, and "signposting" for further steps. An admirable and active job is done with both these aspects. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mrjulesd:, I'm quite taken back by the idea that I don't understand the purpose of the noticeboard, since I'm the one who originally proposed the idea, and created it. The purpose of this noticeboard was originally to solve low-level disputes in a simplified manner. It's become so much different to that now I've approached here to ask whether there is a better way of doing things, since we've gone from having many volunteers to very few, and it appears that due to the complex processes DRN now has, it's effectiveness is somewhat limited. Steven Crossin 19:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Steven Crossin: well perhaps things have worked differently to how you envisaged. Again how can you not contend that the present activities of promoting discussion and signposting are not worthwhile? The main alternatives like ANI are hardly a good substitute. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - My personal experience at DRN was quite helpful. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Over the years, too many things have been centralised into ANI. There was the Wikiquette board, where editor behaviour was discussed but that was subsumed into ANI as WQ usually didn't have a strong admin presence so other users could only point out things to the editor in question. That led to that being closed because no one could ever do anything binding, unlike ANI where everything could be made binding. Similar RFC/U was subsumed into ANI because, like WQ, the findings were not binding. The only saving grace of RFCU was that the material gathered in it could be used in an ANI posting or an Arbcom case. Now, one can argue that user behaviour could fall within the purview of ANI, but DRN largely focuses on the content in the dispute. Various admins, time and time again, have pointed out on ANI that that board should never be used for content disputes and to take it DRN. Closing DRN, however, would make ANI the first stop not just for behavioural reports but also content disputes. A low success rate should not be viewed as a failure in the board, or in the regulars whose tireless efforts to act as go betweens is admirable, but as a failure in the reporters in getting over their petty disputes. Blackmane (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Threaded Discussion

I have added subheadings of Survey and Threaded Discussion because it is my experience that RFCs often get derailed by discussion embedded with the Opposes and Supports. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I would like to comment on the idea of a screening bot. It seems like an easy idea but simply looking for certain words would be dangerous. In particular, the recent use of "Pick a winner" was not an inappropriate filing. It was a perfectly legitimate filing that simply represented a misunderstanding of what the mediator does. In the past, filers who have wanted the mediator to arbitrate sometimes have been satisfied with mediation. Also, some badly filed cases are filed so badly that it would take a robust bot to avoid being confused by them. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Question - I have a question. It seems obvious to me that DRN does no harm and may do some good and does not harm. Even if the metrics show a low success rate, that is better than nothing. Since it seems obvious that DRN does no harm and may do good, but a proposal has been made to shut it down, it seems that perhaps those of us who are defending it have missed something. Perhaps the editor who is proposing to shut it down is aware of some way that he has failed to state clearly how it does actual harm. I did once propose to shut down a dispute resolution mechanism that, in my view, did actual harm. It was Request for Comment on a User. It first was so rigid in its preconditions that it was extremely difficult to use, and then second typically resulted in worsening the anger between the subject editor and their critics. It was shut down. I don't see a case that keeping DRN does actual harm. However, I am prepared to think that the proponent of shutting it down failed to explain how it does actual harm. Have we missed something? Does it do actual harm? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I will note a few things to User:Steve Crossin. First, I did read the statement. Second, although RFC has always officially stood for Request for Comments, it has very rarely really been used for that, because it really has always been a Request for Consensus, and will always be treated as a !vote. I didn't turn it into one. The proposer did, by putting the RFC tag on it. Third, the title that he gave it implied a vote, and did not come across as a request for constructive improvements. Fourth, I am aware that the proposer and I disagree about whether to have editors respond only to the moderator. I have found that the issues that come here don't benefit by back-and-forth discussion because back-and-forth discussion has already been tried. If the proposer wants to impose more restrictions on moderators, so that a moderator can't impose restrictions on editors, that is worth discussing, but it sort of works against his point that this board has become too rigid. Fifth, except for criticizing that particular approach, the combination of the title, which was not constructive, and the lack of any specific suggestion, did not strike me as helpful. If the proposer does want to make helpful suggestions, thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Ideas (partially baked) for screening bot

I don't think that the basic architecture of parsing the words used in the request is the way to go. Right off the top of my head, I would like to see something like:

• "please enter the name of the talk page where there this has been discussed" (process) "Is this the correct page? [Link]" (process) "You have only made two comments on that page, and none in the last month. Please go back and discuss this issue on the talk page before filing a DRN case" (abort with a help page about consensus)
• "please read the following instructions and then answer the following questions: True or False: DRN is the right place to discuss user misbehavior. True or False: DRN is the right place to discuss disputes about article content. True or false: according to WP:DRR "Requests for comment" is the right place to report users who are actively edit warring." (the actual questions will take some thought, these are just off the top of my head).
• "You recently opened a report at WP:ANI and sent notices to two editors who have recently posted comments on the article talk page. Your DRN case is on hold until a volunteer confirms that you aren't trying to bring up the same issue both places"

What I don't want to see is things like our current "Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already." section. Everyone just says yes (and if they don't say yes the first time, they simply refile giving the bot the answer it likes). --Guy Macon (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not a big fan of bot-screening. I would be a greater fan of having dedicated human clerks who certified or closed DRN requests based on set criteria (sufficient attempts at talk page resolution, correct venue, focus on content over behavior, etc.) --Jayron32 14:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer

I will love to work as volunteer. Please come with a case to me on my talk page for neutral advice.AksheKumar (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. After signing up as a volunteer on our volunteer page, you come here to pick and take a case you would like to moderate. However, the fact that you don't already understand that, along with the fact that you are new to the encyclopedia with only 102 edits, strongly suggests to me that you are not yet ready to work as a volunteer here. Working here successfully requires an extensive knowledge of Wikipedia policies and practices which, ordinarily, only comes with experience in editing. Let me recommend that you hold off from volunteering here at DRN until you have accumulated at least 3,500-5,000 non-NPP, non-automated edits and, after you've gained most of that experience, have given 15-20 opinions at the Third Opinion project. Working at 3O is great experience for someone who wishes to move on to more advanced work in dispute resolution at Wikipedia. Thank you for wanting to volunteer and best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Betsy DeVos

I can't figure out where to list a dispute that I am not involved in. Therefore, I am posting it here (I have not notified the disputants). Two editors have been arguing on the Betsy DeVos talk page about whether or not to put in some financial information about the woman's father. This is an extensive exchange in which the editors seem to be talking at cross-purposes, with maybe two other editors briefly chiming in, so my request for 3O was denied. I think a third party should help these two editors come to an amicable resolution.Kdammers (talk) 06:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Since participation in all forms of moderated dispute resolution is voluntary, there's no point in making a request here unless you have some reason to believe that the disputants will participate here. Any filing here would be closed if parties sufficient to come to a consensus on the dispute choose not to participate. About the only form of DR where participation is more or less required is RFC and even there editors are not required to participate. But the RFC will go on whether or not they do, so if they want their position to be considered they must either participate or chance being ignored. An editor does not have to be a participant in the dispute to file an RFC. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Saraiki Dialect Issue

Can another editor please take a look at the Saraiki dialect issue here, and possibly explain to User:AksheKumar what to do? There seems to be a failure on my part to explain how they should list the other parties. They listed one party on the project page, and multiple editors on my talk page (which is not sufficient). I thought that they might be having difficulty with English, and suggested that they edit another Wikipedia, but they say that they are proficient in English. Obviously I am failing to explain something to them. Can someone else take a look and offer an opinion and possibly help them? Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't close it if you have no interest. Reason given by you that I am asking for closure without remedy is incorrect. Why new RFC. It is done just few days back. It is no way to solve dispute by mocking English and closing. I object to non professional approach. AksheKumar (talk) 08:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Somali civil war editorializing

About Somali civil war editorializing: Disputant here. The dispute was about naked POV and judgmental language argued for using alleged "reliable sources" such as FRONTLINE and Commonwealth Law Bulletin and "the unpleasant (and sometimes deadly) reality of life under Barre". I lost interest in the dispute for at least three days, upon which the dispute closed. And I'm glad I did lose interest in it - I got a lot done both on the computer and off of it during that time. Well that is it - I'm forking it. Not same-site forking, I mean, but the article will be copied to another site. 130.105.213.86 (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I figured out which propaganda techniques they were using. Buckshot06 and Cordless Larry were using message discipline to avoid having to admit that they were violating WP:Truth and WP:WikiVoice and to argue for their officialese, glittering generalities, euphemisms and dysphemisms. 130.105.213.86 (talk) 06:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Template note

In July of 2015 one of our volunteers, MrScorch6200 created a couple of useful templates for others to add to discussions here as "Notes" to the various parties involved in the dispute. Originally the template simply said; "Volunteer note" but I felt that could be confused by some as a note for volunteers and not to everyone so I changed the template to read; "Note to participants". It remained unchanged until a few days ago when JustBerry reverted the change with the edit summary of "Not customary at WP:DRN. Please discuss on talk page if necessary". The custom of DRN in regards to templates is not spelled out and having created many of them myself I am not entirely sure of what the editor meant but felt a discussion should be started in case there were others that felt the Template:DRN-volunteer-note should be altered.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: As far as I'm aware, the template read "Volunteer note" until your change here. Was there any discussion on this change? There is another template Template:DRN-note-to-volunteer to distinguish the note to volunteer template from the general "volunteer note" template. If you check on the WP:DRN page itself, you'll see that not once is the "Note to participants" phrase used. Instead of having volunteers manually type and bold "Volunteer note," changing the template directly would make it easier for volunteers. Also, please note that the template title is "DRN-volunteer-note". You're more than welcome to create "DRN-note-to-participants" or "DRN-n-t-p" for short (something of that nature). Would you please point to the discussion that prompted your change above? --JustBerry (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: Looks like already-existing Template:V note can be used as "Volunteer note" then. --JustBerry (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for responding and taking time over this. I need to add some context here for transparency and honesty. I am a major contributor to the WP:DRN page, the project and the noticeboard and the DRN FAQ page. Having stated that, yes I believe I did start a discussion about the change when the templates were first created. I will have to take a moment to pin point the discussion.

Now, I am not entirely sure what you mean by the phrase not once being used on the DRN Page and am still not clear on the reasoning of your change. As for creating other templates, yes I can make more but we are all welcome to edit that template. The entire reason for the template is simply to give volunteers some extra tools. My change was meant to clarify. I am curious what prompted you to make the recent change yourself? Give me a moment while I search our talk page history.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It appears the discussion I remembered was about a different template issue. There was no discussion before the change was made and I do not see any discussion afterwards.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: In the spirit of dispute resolution, since Template:V note exists for Volunteer note, keeping Template:DRN-volunteer-note for Note to participants doesn't appear to be a problem. --JustBerry (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Rolfing

• @Robert McClenon: It's probably worthwhile taking a closer look at JzG's dispute overview to put the case into perspective. --JustBerry (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit war despite noticeboard?

Regarding Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Korean_nationalism.23Article_issues: Should I report the edit war? Already 4 times reverted. Possibly advice on WP:Preserve and unsourced as well as redundant content needed. Should I have mentioned the edit war in my summary?--Christian140 (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Christian140 - First, I see that there has been edit-warring. The four reverts do not count as 3RR because they did not occur in a 24-hour period. It is better not to report edit-warring if also requesting resolution here, because a case will not be accepted here if it is also pending at another dispute resolution forum, including the edit-warring noticeboard. (If edit-warring results in the page being protected, bringing the case here for discussion during protection is encouraged.) Second, it is not necessary to mention edit-warring in a summary. There is often edit-warring in cases that are brought here as a way to resolve the edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Okay, thanks for the reply. --Christian140 (talk) 08:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Christian140 - two minor points:

1. It's rather hypocritical of you to make comments regarding edit warring, when you have made seven reverts on the article in question, and then complain about me making four reverts.

2. It seems quite a cynical move from you to revert the article at 18:32, start a DRN report at 18:55 on the same day and then complain when it gets reverted back. If you had left the previous version and started a DRN report, then your actions/comments might have a touch more credibility, as it stands this just seems like you trying to play the system and secure your desired version of an article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Garage Punk Discussion

@Robert McClenon: @TransporterMan: The garage punk discussion appears to have too much WP:SYNTH and not sure if the dispute will deviate away from that anytime soon. Waiting on comments from the other party, but any thoughts in the meantime? --JustBerry (talk) 06:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI, just added the Volunteer(s) 4 sub-section to the discussion in case other volunteers wish to chime into the discussion (in response to the sub-section Involved Parties #3). Guidance provided in the sub-section Volunteer(s) #3 doesn't appear to be heeded--thus far--in the subsequent involved parties section (Involved Parties #3). --JustBerry (talk) 06:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: @TransporterMan: Update: Involved parties of the garage punk case have added more to the discussion. Pinging for any additional thoughts. --JustBerry (talk) 21:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

User:JustBerry - My own advice at this point would be to find some way to close the thread. It has been dragging on for three weeks and doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I've been thinking of doing the same for some time now. In the spirit of dispute resolution, I am putting together the following proposal in the case's discussion section:

• Guideline #1 for Involved Parties: Within 48 hours, both parties provide at least three third-party sources for each change (general or specific) they would like made, each change should be summarized in no more than two sentences and bulleted (or clearly listed), and each party is expected to avoid WP:SYNTH.

• If guidelines are NOT met: Case will be closed as failed. *^{(see "Asterisk note" at the bottom)}
• If only one party meets guidelines: Case will be closed as failed. Though this may not be ideal, proper mediation cannot begin until both parties have met the guidelines. *^{(see "Asterisk note" at the bottom)}
• If guidelines are met:

• Case moderator forms a resolution proposal.
• Case moderator extends the do-not-archive tag for another 48 hours.
• Guideline #2 for Involved Parties: Within 48 hours, both parties provide at least three third-party sources for each change they would like to make to the proposal, each change should be summarized in no more than two sentences and bulleted (or clearly listed), and each party is expected to continue avoiding WP:SYNTH. If either party does not wish to file changes, they must confirm that that is the case.

• If guidelines are NOT met: Case will be closed as failed. *^{(see "Asterisk note" at the bottom)}
• If only one party meets guidelines: Case will be closed as failed. Though this may not be ideal, proper mediation cannot begin until both parties have met the guidelines. *^{(see "Asterisk note" at the bottom)}
• If guidelines are met:

• Case moderator forms a resolution proposal.
• Case marked will be marked as resolved.
• Case moderator removes the do-not-archive tag.

• Asterisk note: In the event that a case is closed as failed, the following will be done:

• Case will be tagged as failed.
• Case will be closed with notice with closing reason.
• Both parties are invited to reach out on my talk page with the information requested in Guideline #1 and Guideline #2 when they feel ready to do so.
• The do-not-archive tag will be removed from the case.

Long, but at least well-defined. I will position these guidelines and ping the both parties within the case itself soon.--JustBerry (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Thanks. Sounds good. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Great. I've just put the procedure in place for the case. The first deadline--sequentially speaking--for the case, i.e. for fulfilling Guideline #1, is Friday, December 30, 2016 at 5:30 PM (UTC). An evaluation of the case is planned to be made by Saturday (UTC) at the latest. I will set the do-not-archive tag parameter for Saturday, December 30, 2016 23:59 (UTC) (epoch: 1483142399). --JustBerry (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: @TransporterMan: Clearly, both parties have not stuck to keeping no more than two sentences per change they would like to make. Rather, instead of a SYNTH race, accusations have fired up in this "round." Before closing the case as failed per procedure above, any final thoughts? --JustBerry (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

User:JustBerry - I recommend failing the case at this point, but maybe I am less optimistic about the ability of endless discussion to resolve things than I should be. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Well, there's not no reasoning behind the low optimism--discussion seems to be leaning towards SYNTH/accusations despite prodding by volunteers/moderators. Let's see what TranspoterMan has to say before closing the case as failed. Thanks for giving your two cents. --JustBerry (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: FYI, looks like the case has reached some resolution. Glad I stuck it out to salvage the case! --JustBerry (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

2014 Vermont gubernatorial election

It appears that 3 of the 6 parties have no interest in participating. Lack of interest by the same parties seems to also be the case at the talkpage at Vermont gubernatorial election, 2014. Very strange situation. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Hm. Pinging User:Robert McClenon as well. --JustBerry (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion can continue with two or more parties. There is no reason why the lack of participation of some of the identified parties should stall discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The more recent discussion--not the one from six months ago--doesn't appear substantial, though. --JustBerry (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@JustBerry: I'm not sure what you meant by the above—that the participation in the more recent discussion wasn't substantial or that the discussion content therein had no substance. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 02:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@HopsonRoad: I was commenting on the fact that half the discussion (on the article talk page) appears to be from six months ago, and the other half is more recent. The discussion seemed borderline, yet slightly short of, extensive article talk page discussion, a requirement prior to accepting a case at DRN. However, the depth of the debate appears substantial, so I decided to pursue handling the case. Hope that clarified any misunderstandings. --JustBerry (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Back

I am trying to return to Wikipedia after slowing down considerably over the last year and have been checking in at specific venues, noticeboards and articles etc.. I have not abandoned the noticeboard but most of the time I cannot volunteer here as there is almost always one or two participants in the dispute that make me have recuse myself. Of the three current disputes with no volunteer, I have interactions with Flyer22 Reborn, Baseball Bugs and George Ho.

What is our current guideline on volunteering on a dispute when one has had interactions with a participant?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Mark, good to have you back. "Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute." I run into some of that, too. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Well yes...I remember that. I should. Just checking. I do have one question. Could you elaborate or speculate on the part of the guideline that reads; "which would bias their response ". This appears to be a loophole that allows for "involved" editors (or those that have had past dealings) to volunteer when there are no past issues that would create biased responses from the volunteers (unless asked to recuse by another). Also, I am concerned that limiting the "subject matter" may be going to far and seems unusual for a noticeboard. These guidelines may also be a factor in why we are not getting as many qualified volunteers. Editors that are involved in the Wikipedia community at the Tea House, Editor retention and other such venues do not have this limitation but more importantly, are the ones you want to attract but can't because they are the ones that have the greatest interactions with others. I wonder if we can revisit this guideline with sensitivity?--Mark Miller (talk) 05:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

In fact, I would like to encourage the entire policy be discussed with the possibility of abandoning it entirely. My main reasoning is that I for one feel it limits the value of experienced editors that have the broad range of interests for this very noticeboard. Why should editors with the same general interest in subjects be told they cannot be volunteers to help resolve disputes in such areas as LGBT, History, Biographies of living persons and many other general subjects that our guideline has outright put on the outside of this noticeboard. Look, if it is just me, cool, just say, Mark....we don't feel your input is needed any further but don't curse the project I hold dear just because one editor got up in arms because he placed one comment on my talk page and held then took extreme measures to actually delete this noticeboard. I feel we were held at practically "gun point' but that may be too unkind and re-hashes the whole thing again in a negative way and the real way forward is in the spirit of dispute resolution. So in that spirit I ask for people's opinion on whether we should have a formal RFC for full community input on whether or not this portion of the DRN guideline is too limiting and works against dispute resolution.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I wrote that and it's my belief that all we have to offer as volunteers is our dispassionate neutrality and a strong hand to control the discussion. If any party to a case has a reason to doubt a volunteer's neutrality then it decreases the chance that the case will be successful. I didn't write it in response to any perceived attack on the board, but just as what I thought to be the the right balance. And you're right: the "which would bias" was intentionally crafted so that each volunteer could judge for him/herself whether a prior association would bias their participation. But the second part of the guideline was written so that any participant could also object (and note that it doesn't say "objects to a volunteer's participation due to bias": a party can object for any reason) and the volunteer must either withdraw or take it to the community. That puts power in both hands and provides a remedy if the volunteer adjudges the effect of his/her prior associations incorrectly. I am, of course, open to a reevaluation if you feel one is needed. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

You could ask the participant on his talk page if he was OK with you taking the case. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to chew on this a bit, reflect and try to get back into the swing of things before I try to form any further discussion. I want to go back to the original few years when the discussions here formed our guidelines to get a better idea of how we got exactly where we are and if there is anything new at all that can even be suggested.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Heading to RfC

@Robert McClenon: Probably good advice for Talk:Korean nationalism#Article issues (lack of interested participants) and Talk:Denis Villeneuve#Intro Sentence (RfC being considered for achieving wider consensus). What do you think? --JustBerry (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Just closed both DRN cases of the articles linked above. See close reasoning/notice, and kindly let me know if you have any differing thoughts on the closings. --JustBerry (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. If you have any further questions, ask me next year -- but wait, the timestamp will say it is next year. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I know it's New Year's UTC, but is it New Year's in your time zone yet? --JustBerry (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

No. It's 11 pm in Maryland (on New York Time). Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: This case may also be better suited by holding an RfC: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Vermont_gubernatorial_election.2C_2014.23Libertarian_candidate --JustBerry (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

DRN request removed by involved party

[1] – what do I do next? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Please wait until the new content is created. You should be patient. It takes time to find references and paraphrase content.

Comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You have a history of disruption on wikipedia, which indicates this request was not made in good faith. Mathsci (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

No. Whether the content I created was so bad that its removal was warranted is what is up for discussion here. I invited politely to present your sweeping changes on the talk page first, I don't see what would be the problem with that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

On the one hand, participation in moderated discussion at this noticeboard is voluntary, so that the filing party should pursue other methods of dispute resolution. On the other hand, removal of a request from the noticeboard is not the proper way to decline to participate in discussion. The other party is cautioned that removal of the dispute filing was disruptive, and that they should have replied that they did not want to take part in moderated discussion. Both parties are reminded to comment on content, not contributors, and to read the dispute resolution policy. Resume discussion on the article talk page. Since discussion here has been declined, the next step may be to request the involvement of other editors, e.g., via a WikiProject, or a Request for Comments. Once again, the removal of a request from this noticeboard, other than by a volunteer due to erroneous filing, is not the proper way to decline to participate in discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: thanks. I launched the RfC idea but that didn't go too well ([2]). Maybe I could try to find a place where removal of an RfC wouldn't be tolerated? Or are there other suggestions? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment - The removal of an RFC on any talk page is not tolerated and should be reported at WP:ANI. Do not engage in further discussions here. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on contributors. See note below that we do not give opinions or do mediation on this talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Francis Schonken has a long history of tendentious editing in this area. That resulted in a restriction imposed at WP:ANI regarding editing on articles related to Bach and their talk pages. Some of the more recent problems he has created are described here.[3] with a relevant comment by another editor.[4] That summarises the current situation fairly well. This appeal to WP:DRN follows my suggestion of using a secondary source to create content for the article in question, which I am now doing. Part of the content is subordinate to the articles Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach and Concerto transcriptions (Bach), where it is discussed in detail. In the past and now, Francis Schonken editing and postings on noticeboard have advocated the use of primary sources; on this occasion he has taken issue with the use of a secondary source of impeccable quality. You're welcome to look at the material I am adding. It will probably be finished soon and will not omit any facts that Francis Schonken wanted to add. That will be incorporated as part of the paraphrase of the expert commentary in the secondary source. The author, a well-known Vivaldi scholar, Eleanor Selfridge-Field, actually has her own wiki in which she discussed this very topic.[5] That wiki is not a source, but provides useful guidance on how to present the topic and for how to write clearly for the reader. Before I had made any content edits to the articles, I told Francis Schonken about that source and others. He added wholly confusing info to the article—a redlink without further explanation. He refused to add two or three sentences of explanation in the article that he could be found in the secondary source. He claimed that the redlink was to a 1720 lady's musical album (Anne Dawson's book). ehch is a primary source so cannot be described in the article. At that point we enter the world of Tweedledum, Tweedledee, the Mad Hatter, the Queen of Hearts, etc. Before I had made any content contributions, he decided to pre-empt my editing. I think he should wait and see what I am going to add. How can he know? I have had a lot of experience creating content on baroque music. Orgelbüchlein is a current project. As is the parallel Concerto transcription (Bach). Other articles are Clavier-Übung III, Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes, Organ concertos, Op.4 (Handel), Organ concertos, Op.7 (Handel) and Concerti grossi, Op.6 (Handel). Giulio Cesare is on the back burner. As I have added content so far—on the early history of the compositions—I have noticed that all the information I am adding is completely new without any prior hint of it in the article. That underlines why we use secondary sources written by experts. The small amount of material on transcriptions is summarised by the same source (except for one minor point). So no material will be omitted and it will be presented by paraphrasing the words of a Vivaldi expert with a footnote from a Bach expert. I will avoid technical detail. Mathsci (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Whether none, some, or all of that is true, removal of another editor's posts from this noticeboard is in violation of the talk page guidelines unless done in accordance with the rules and norms of this noticeboard. You are free not to participate, but you can't remove or modify another disputant's posts. I agree with Robert that since it is now clear that you do not wish to participate that there's no point in restoring the post, but you are trouted for having done it in the first place. As for the rest, we do not give opinions or do mediation here on this talk page. If you'd like to restore the post that you removed and agree to participate, then we can address the content issues (but not the conduct issues, we don't do that) which you raise, otherwise there's nothing for us to do here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

See above note that we do not give opinions or do mediation here on this talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Trouting accepted. Francis Schonken is unfortunately known for disruptive editing. In this case he should be patient and wait until I have finished creating content. That involves going to my University Library to look at one of the main references. The relevant commentary cannot be found on the web (as far as I know). Francis Schonken knows that I am going to make that visit because I have indicated that on the article talk page. The fact that I am doing that seems to have caused a new round of disruptive conduct. But why react in this way to somebody who is finding impeccable secondary sources and writing content in an exemplary way? How can we write about events and documents in the early eighteenth century without consulting modern sources which are only held in the reference sections of university and departmental libraries? I do not know how. Nor do I know why Francis Schonken is pushing his personal opinions that contradict what can be found in the sources. I simply follow the expertd. Yesterday I discovered a long recent article by the Vivaldi scholar Michael Talbot, hitherto unnoticed by wikipedians, which concerns this article and more specifically the most popular concerto from the set, "Vivaldi's Fifth". In eighteenth century, Vivaldi's concerto RV 519 was so often played in the British Isles that it became their version of our "Beethoven's Fifth". Mathsci (talk) 08:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC) @Mathsci: from the above it is clear that you are prepared to discuss the content of the matter, and explain it to the DRN moderators. Wouldn't it be a good idea after all to discuss this on the DRN page itself, moderated by these moderators? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Pablo_Picasso

• @Robert McClenon: FYI, I plan to ping the involved editors in a few days to see if they are still interested in moderated discussion. Discussion inactive for about three days now. --JustBerry (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• @Robert McClenon: Actually, no response to prior ping. We can leave the case up for now in case the editors decide to revisit (until auto archive). --JustBerry (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to close it. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Either way works. --JustBerry (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is this closed? Both users - Modernist and Ewulp refuse to give good arguments and are reverting my edits and now this is closed? Why? They're the ones in the position to supply arguments & sources? I'm the party who is asking for sources! C.Gesualdo (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

User:C.Gesualdo - Discussion at this noticeboard is voluntary. Resume discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Sri_Lanka_Matha.23Tagore_claim_has_been_rebutted

@Robert McClenon: Both involved parties seem to have multiple reliable sources supporting their claim. Perhaps the best course of action here would be guiding the editors towards a rephrasing that highlights the ambiguity in authorship. Agree, disagree, or other thoughts? --JustBerry (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

User:JustBerry - If reliable sources support two different views of authorship, then Wikipedia should neutrally present the views of the reliable sources. Steps toward stating that disagreement would be a good idea. Are both editors willing to agree that there is disagreement? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Posted clarification question for both involved parties. --JustBerry (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Should I close a DRN where the user asking for resolution is forumshopping?

In the dispute re: Milo Yiannopoulos' religion, I noticed that the user who filed the dispute also asked several other boards for validation.(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Should I close the case because there was consensus on the ANI that he should not list Milo as Jewish? MereTechnicality (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The headers to the DRN page seem clear: "We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves." I say nuke it as being under discussion elsewhere. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. MereTechnicality (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Premature commenting or discussion

First, let me admit that if the admonition, "let he who is among you who has not sinned cast the first stone," applies here that I shouldn't be saying anything, because I'm pretty sure that if you look back through my contributions you're going to find some instances where I did what I'm about to criticize. So be it, and take this as hypocritical if you like, but I'm talking about trends and customs, not occasional deviations: I'm seeing too much opinion-giving, sometimes in passing and sometimes full-out, and discussion being started by volunteers — note the plural — prior to the time the other editors to a dispute have weighed in. Doing so poisons the well against what we're really supposed to be doing here, which is moderating disputes with a view towards the disputants coming to consensus, by making the volunteer who does so look biased from the beginning. This isn't Nth Opinion (which might ought to exist, but that's another topic) or an advice noticeboard, it's a DR noticeboard. Neutrality is what we have to sell. There are circumstances in which there is so clear a solution to a content dispute that there's actually no dispute at all and unilateral action is justified: (a) One party is clearly and unarguably in violation of a content policy and there is no reasonable IAR local exception argument. (b) One party is clearly arguing against a clear and unmistakable consensus which has been reached in that current dispute (or in a consensus discussion in the immediate past). But in those circumstances, in my opinion, the proper thing to do is to close the dispute as "No dispute" and explain why you've closed it in the closing comments, not just to put it in a post in the case and leave it open for further debate or discussion. In almost all other cases, we should refrain from commenting on the case except for DRN-procedural matters until sufficient parties have weighed in to begin moderation and should close it without comment if that doesn't happen. Of course, any volunteer can choose to become a disputant or participant in the discussion or dispute rather than acting as a volunteer, but that should ordinarily happen at the article or user talk page and they should not take any action in the case as a volunteer here (and if they do edit in the case here they should clearly say that they aren't acting as a volunteer). Finally, let me also back off slightly and say that volunteers have a wide discretion to handle cases here as they see fit. So I'm not saying that anything that anyone has done here was improper — and indeed, some or all of it when examined specifically case by case may have been the best thing for the encyclopedia — but only that it deviates from the concept of this noticeboard. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Singapore

Is a moderator available for Singapore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs)

I've offered my assistance. Steven Crossin 23:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Sierra Leone discussion

Block evasion by sockpuppet. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yashovardhan I have tried talking on the talk page but the admin Materialscientist does not listen. Can a good admin go there and see my arguement. The admin locked the page without explaining why he gets to decide what sources to use. I have put a disputed tag but even that is not enough, I have linked him to the official wikipedia page which explains what sources are good enough for wikipedia, but he does not reply to that, and he keeps undoing my edits and locks the article, suppressing Bengali of its glory. Can a GOOD admin please help??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafaela1991 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC) --- this has been moved from main discussion to talk page as main discussion was already closed Yashovardhan (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC) @Rafala1991: I really can't take up this as, 1. The case is already closed; and 2. This is out of the jurisdiction of DRN. I'd recommend filing a case at WP:ANI where another uninvolved admin can look into it and help you. Thank you! Yashovardhan (talk) 09:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Name change discussion at Talk:Liancourt Rocks

Because this issue has been extremely contentious in the past, I invite admins and other interested parties to keep an eye on this name change discussion regarding the future naming of the Liancourt Rocks article. Thank you for participating! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Nihonjoe - Thank you for mentioning this. This particular controversy (which has been problematic in Wikipedia for a decade) isn't a topic for DRN at this time, because there is a Request for Comments, and a Request for Comments (RFC) takes precedence over other content dispute forums. Also, by the way, if there are any conduct issues resulting from the RFC, Arbitration Enforcement is likely to be more effective than WP:ANI, because discretionary sanctions are in effect. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I'm well aware of all of that (you'll note I'm one of the admins mentioned in the notice at the top of the page). I posted this more as an FYI, not asking for dispute resolution. Hence, the wording of my post, where I didn't ask for dispute resolution. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

proposals of reform

1. At this point, I've ran through the archives of the DRN and a look at them shows that most of the cases brought here are closed before discussion because of lack of extensive discussion on the article talk page. I propose a bot which can check the talk page and warn editors automatically before filing if not enough discussion has taken place. This will seriously reduce the workload as we won't have to look around to find where and when the discussion took place. Just now, i closed a case because the last discussion on the talk page was in February! I mean people need to understand that DRN is not a free problem solving machine!
2. the second issue is that other editors are not informed about the DRN. Just recently, after I closed a DRN (early again) and left talk page messages to all concerned about the closure, one of them thanked me for informing him about the DRN. I mean seriously, this is a big issue. We could again have a bot to do this work for us. I believe they have such a bot at mediation. Bots could leave a note to all listed parties about the DRN, remind them of the status when a volunteer changes it and inform them about closures as well! This will again reduce the workload and even help new editors who have no prior experience at DRN.

Let's discuss on these proposals below and if anyone can work on them, even better! Yashovardhan (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

First, I am skeptical of the ability of a bot to check whether the preconditions for a filing have been met. It is true that most of the filings in the past few days have had inadequate prior discussion. However, the amount of human time spent in checking the case is small compared to the ill will that would result from a mistake by a bot. If someone can propose the exact specifications for the bot, in a form such as a flowchart or pseudo-code, we can consider it. We know that DRN is not a free problem solving machine, but I would rather have editors try to use a free problem solving machine than resort to edit-warring, personal attacks, or misguided WP:ANI filings.

Second, I would welcome any way to publicize the availability of DRN. The fact that we had to close a number of requests that didn't meet the preconditions means that some editors do know about DRN, and may not understand it. It is true that some editors don't know. I don't think that we should try to publicize the existence of DRN in particular so much as to make all of the dispute resolution forums better known. One way to do this would be by including mention of dispute resolution in some of the canned template messages that new editors get. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: yeah, i agree that bots could cause more problems than solution. I got the idea from the fact that the meditation committee uses it. But I guess that's a more of a formal place than this. About advertising DRN, i believe article talk pages template are a better place. I mean the talk header template above the articles. It could have a message like "If even after extensive long discussion, no consensus is achieved, you may consider visiting the DRN...". I don't know about including it in a welcome message. Maybe a short line with a link to learn more would suffice. Except for that, I've a particular question to ask you - if I'm closing a drn early without discussion, should I inform all concerned parties about the closure even if they have not been informed by the filer of the DRN? (in fact in almost all cases, the filer doesn't inform anyone, that's why the second proposal above. Yashovardhan (talk) 03:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Yashovardhan Dhanania - I wouldn't bother to notify parties to a case if the case is closed without discussion. If they were notified, they can check DRN and see that it was closed. If they were not notified, they do not really need to care and we do not need to worry about them. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, the MedCom's bot doesn't decide whether to accept cases. The chair does that. The MedCom's bot basically automates the job of notifying the parties. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: yeah, i thought about that. I mentioned the medcom's bot in my second point for that exact reason of notifying parties. Now that you say that, even I won't notify Parties after closing a case. Thanks! Yashovardhan (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

And, just for historical reference, we had a notification bot here at DRN as well at one time, but it caused more maintenance problems than it solved. Due to the fairly loose construction of our case format it worked inconsistently which meant that volunteers still had to go behind it and check that it worked properly and new volunteers generally didn't realize that, which added to the confusion. The MEDCOM filing bot is more constrained and the notification bot leaves notices for the committee when it can't read or find the parties. Even then, the chairperson still has to keep an eye out for those notices and at least spot check to see if folks have been notified. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: now that's new! Didn't know this before. I can guess how much trouble these bots could be when malfunctioning! Yashovardhan (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Balija

Hi Yashovardhan, I am trying to respond but unfortunately the discussion is all over the place and it is not clear what is going on. The filer wrote 5 bullet points before even opened the discussion. Where should they go and what is the point of them in the discussion. The points 1, 2, and 4 do not address the issue under the discussion. I would prefer if they are struck off. I have responded to his point 5 basically, but the point 3 is yet unaddressed.

Then there is a section called "Sources". What are they sources for? Have you accepted them? What is your assessment of what they say?

I am afraid the whole thing is quite confused at this point. Ideally, you as the moderator would pose questions, and the parties would answer you. At the end you would make up your mind and provide your assessment. Without you leading the discussion, I am not sure what I am supposed to be doing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: ok firstly, you are not supposed to discuss on an ongoing DRN with the volunteer outside the DRN or It's talk page (I've moved this from my talk page to DRN talk page). Secondly, the sources were added by the filer. I've not checked them yet and I've never indicated I've checked a single point made by any of you. Lastly, respond under the heading "arguments against filer". Add your sources there. If you've any problem with me as a volunteer, please state so and I'll happily give up this case to another volunteer willing to take it up. Thank you, Yashovardhan (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

sockpuppet investigation against filer

@Robert McClenon: if the filer of a DRN is being investigated for sockpuppet, should the DRN case be put on hold? Yashovardhan (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Yashovardhan - Did another party to the case file the SPI? If so, the case is pending in another forum, and should be closed here. If a third editor filed the SPI, let the DRN go forward until the questioned editor is either blocked, and the DRN can be closed, or exonerated, and we can continue the DRN. That's a quick answer. I'll look at it more later today. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Thanks for the quick answer. The other party has filed the SPI and both other parties are actively in discussion there. I will close the case then (as it is this was a really complicated case and if I check, various violations of civil code will be there.). Thanks! Yashovardhan (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Yashovardhan - Please provide a link to the SPI. However, it sounds as though this case should go to Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Not really sure if the case is fit for arbitration but here's the link of the SPI - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mayasutra. This could be a possible block evasion though (as per SPI). If you ask where I found it, it was on the talk page of the withdrawn party. Just followed it out of curiosity and there it was! Yashovardhan (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Yashovardhan - I didn't mean or say that the case was going to arbitration. It is appropriate for arbitration enforcement. It has already been to arbitration. Doesn't the dispute have to do with India? Disruptive editing in certain areas that have already been arbitrated is subject to discretionary sanctions, an accelerated method of dealing with disruptive editors in battleground areas, including areas that have been real battlegrounds in history. See the India-Pakistan-Afghanistan case. It is useful for a volunteer to know areas where disruptive editing can be dealt with in this fashion, which is usually more effective than WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I'm sorry, my bad. I'd seen the warning on the user talk page but didn't go much into details. I'd read about discretionary sanctions just recently so this will certainly help. Thank you so much sir! Did you go through the DRN case or the SPI? Yashovardhan (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Yashovardhan and Robert, in my opinion the SPI doesn't affect the DRN case very much. It was't serious abuse. So one of the accounts of the user was going to survive in any case. The filing party had indicated in the past that he was going to be awy for 48 hours. I will leave it to you to decide whether to continue afterwards or close it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Yashovardhan Dhanania - Well, well. (A hole in the ground to get a liquid, water or oil, from.) Both editors in the DRN were more verbose than is common. When one of the editors files an SPI, just as when one of the editors files at WP:ANI, the conduct issue pre-empts content discussion, so that you were right in closing the DRN. Since the area of the dispute is India, as I mentioned above, it is subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions. Battleground editing too often tragically has to do with real historical battlegrounds, such as, in modern times, the border between India and Pakistan, and, in ancient and medieval times, the entire subcontinent of South Asia, whether between different princely states or different castes. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Ip moderators

I am an IP editor who has read the policies and guidelines, and I edit from a school IP, meaning contributions sometimes come from this Ip that aren't mine. So I ask, can an Ip be a moderator? 68.233.214.74 (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

It would be a very bad idea because, inter alia, part of what a DRN volunteer trades on is confidence in the moderator and that is very hard to establish and judge with an IP editor and, though it should not be this way, many experienced editors who might be parties here are prejudiced against IP editors. Consider registering an account, it makes many things easier. Also realize that volunteers here generally need a good bit of general experience here at Wikipedia — generally to get a broad grasp and understanding of policy — before really being capable of handling disputes. Handling a few dozen requests at Third Opinion is the best way to get as start in dispute resolution. But thank you for being interested in helping with DR. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@68.233.214.74: I agree with TransporterMan, i just had a quick look at your account and it seems many other editors agree that you do a great job fighting vandalism and reverting unconstructive edits. Really good job there! But again, i insist you create an account which will allow you to do all these tasks. If you are worried about privacy, just don't disclose your real name! Your IP anyway discloses far more than you think. I wouldn't, however, trust an IP volunteer at DRN especially if it's a school IP. I wonder though if the bot will recognise an IP listed as a volunteer. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with User:TransporterMan that an unregistered editor should not act as a moderator. I don't know whether I agree that unregistered editors should have the same privileges as registered editors. I think that they should not. Among other things, many unregistered editors have two mistaken ideas. The first is that they preserve their privacy better by editing from an IP address than by editing with a pseudonym. They do not. No one but a Checkuser can determine where a registered (pseudonymous) editor is editing from, unless they say so. An IP address can be geolocated. The second is that their IP address is stable and will have a consistent edit history. While some IP addresses are static, being truly assigned permanently by the ISP, many ISPs assign IP addresses dynamically, either on a floating basis or via a "lease" for period of a few days. There isn't any good reason not to register an account, which preserves your privacy better than an IP address and preserves your edit history better than an IP address. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I like editing from an Ip; I don't like feeling like no one appreciates an Ip editor. I don't want to be harassed by vandals, so I don't create an account. Does this mean my voice doesn't count? Because it sure feels like it. I can't participate as a volunteer here, I can't write for the signpost, etc. I technically can, but no one wants me to. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Also,

«If you don't trust me as an IP contributor in page creation, why do you after I take 5 secs to register?»

(copied from [6]) 68.233.214.74 (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@68.233.214.74: sorry, I'm interfering here but the basic reason we don't trust IP editors at DRN and various other places is simply because your IP address could change. Especially since in your case, It's a school IP so other students even have access to it who can disrupt Wikipedia on your name. There's no problem with editing with an IP otherwise. It's just that It's not stable enough for you to be granted certain other rights that registered users otherwise have. Also, you don't need to really worry about being harassed by vandals. Trust me, vandal can be as disruptive to IP's as to other registered users. Nevertheless, you can go through the WP:AFC to create your page even without registering. As for DRN, i don't think you'll be made a volunteer soon. You can, however, provide your inputs in any case you like! Thanks! Yashovardhan (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yashovardhan Dhanania: it was a quote from meta. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Although a few users have had their user pages "harassed by vandals", that is rare. A more common form of "harassment by vandals" is that a vandal uses the same IP address as a good-faith unregistered editor, and they get warning messages, and possibly a 36-hour block. You ask if your voice doesn't count. You know the answer; it doesn't count as much as that of an editor who uses a pseudonym or a name. When I have closed Requests for Comments, I have given little weight to the statements of IP editors, because I can't be sure how many humans there are. Three completely unrelated IP addresses could be the same human editing via their own cable modem, editing from the public library, and editing from a coffee shop. That is why we can't pay that much attention to IP editors. We don't know how many humans they are. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

This feels like it's getting close to violating WP:AGF because it feels like you are not wanting any anons to do anything and you don't think IPs can do anything. My opinion is here. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, if you think that I don't want unregistered editors to do anything, you are mostly right. I know that I am in a minority, but I would prefer to reduce, not expand, the rights of unregistered editors. If you think that I think that unregistered editors can't do anything, that is just silly; I know what unregistered editors can and can't do. Perhaps you meant that I think they shouldn't be allowed to do anything. Well, that is largely true, and I am in a minority. Assume good faith has nothing to do with the issue. I just don't know how many good-faith humans are behind a set of IP addresses. If you want to change policy on unregistered editors, express your opinions at Village pump (policy). This project talk page is for the discussion of dispute resolution. Unregistered editors are welcome to comment on disputes being moderated, just not as moderators. Unregistered editors are also welcome to register accounts and then acquire the experience to be moderators. They are also welcome to explain why they choose not to register, something that I don't understand. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's why I refuse to register: 1) I identify as a member of the m:Association_of_Good_Faith_Wikipedians_Who_Remain_Unregistered_on_Principle. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I really don't feel that your motivations are pertinent to this particular conversation. Multiple editors have expressed their reasoning regarding why having an IP editor as a DRN moderator would be inadvisable, and I'm not seeing a wellspring of support for changing the policy. As Robert noted, if you feel the IP-editor policy itself is problematic, you're welcome to discuss that, but it's out-of-scope on this page. DonIago (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer needed for this discussion

Is there a volunteer available for Talk:North American_English_regional_phonology#Midland_as_part_of_Southern discussion. There has been considerable amount of discussion right here at the notice board without a volunteer officially opening the case. There are also allegations of some involved editors editing the page in discussion without consensus. I would have volunteered myself but I have been in recent discussion with one of the involved parties over a move closure (now at review) so I'll have to recuse myself. (in any case, I have a busy schedule with exams). If any uninvolved editor could volunteer, it would be really great! Yashovardhan (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Two Reminders

Two reminders.

Case Pending in Another Forum

Editors: We will not accept a case for moderated discussion here if the issue is also pending in another dispute resolution forum, either in another content forum, such as Third Opinion, the reliable source noticeboard, or Requests for Comments; or in a conduct forum, such as WP:ANI, the edit-warring noticeboard, the conflict of interest noticeboard, sockpuppet investigations, or arbitration enforcement.

Volunteers: Please do not open a case for moderated discussion here if the issue is also pending in another dispute resolution forum. You may close a case if you learn that it is also pending in another forum.

Editing the Article

Please do not edit the subject article while a case is open here, either while waiting for a moderator, or after a moderator has accepted the case. The whole reason that the case is here is because the editors could not agree on editing the article; don't prolong the dispute. Commonly the moderator will tell you not to edit the article. Even if the editor doesn't say not to edit the article while discussion is in progress, do not edit the article while discussion is in progress; it doesn't help.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Shakya Origins and Ethnicity

Several editors are involved in what is degrading into a multi-way edit war in Shakya regarding the origins and ethnicity of the Shakya, with several different positions involved. It seems to me that multiple editors are involved in editorializing. One editor has become verbally abusive. Another editor involved was last month given a warning and a 1-week suspension about different matters on the same page. Some help is needed here. Talk:Shakya#Ethnicity Teishin (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Teishin: I think this is more of a conduct issue. I'd suggest going to WP:ANI which is more meant for these issues. If it's only about the content though, you can file a dispute here. Go to WP:DRN and read the instructions on the top. Also, edit wars are suitable for this noticeboard. Yashovardhan (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yashovardhan: I'm not particularly concerned about the conduct, per se. It just seems to me that the involvement of an editor who was focused on maintaining editorial standards would be beneficial. We have multiple editors each taking different positions, with several of them engaging in editorializing. Teishin (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Teishin: my username is Yashovardhan Dhanania (not Yashovardhan). Anyway, if you want moderated discussion, you can start a case at WP:DRN. However, if you just want the view point of uninvolved editors, you can start a Request for comments as well. Regards, Yashovardhan (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yashovardhan Dhanania: My apologies on your username. I have followed your advice to start a case at WP:DRN.Teishin (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Teishin: No issues, I've left a note on the case. Please notify all editors and leave a note there.Yashovardhan (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yashovardhan Dhanania: I have posted notice of this at Talk:Shakya#Ethnicity with pings for all editors cited. Teishin (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Teishin: I'm afraid as per DRN rules, you'll have to notify each one of them on their talk pages individually. There's a template available for this. See the rules at the top of the noticeboard. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yashovardhan Dhanania: Thank you. I have just now completed notifying the users on their individual talk pages. Thank you for your patience. I've fortunately never previously been involved in a Wikipedia dispute.Teishin (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Personal update

As some of the old timers here are aware, a while back I had to stop taking DRN cases because of health problems. It was frustrating for me because I often can spend all day editing Wikipedia, but twice I had to turn over a case to another volunteer when I became hospitalized. I am still interested in helping, but I am not taking any cases because I might not be able to follow through. If anyone needs an unbiased second opinion on a case where they are volunteering, feel free to ask me and I will be happy to help if I am well enough. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. I'll keep this in mind, take care. Yashovardhan (talk) 03:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Four Noble Truths

Can another volunteer take over the case? I'd not like to continue with this case. Thanks! Yashovardhan (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify. Both the parties asked for extra leeway for Robert to respond (here and the DRN page itself). Ms Sarah wanted me to go check 100s of edits before proceeding with the case and she raised concern of me being impartial. As per Dispute resolution norms, any volunteer must withdraw if the participants have objection to his fairness. @Robert McClenon: I'd like your input on where I went wrong. Is giving an editor on a break extra time to respond (on the request of other participants) compared to an editor who's online, received Reminders and been informed by me personally, wrong in any way? I went the extra mile to clarify doubts raised by Sarah and the filer on their user talk page which is not required for the DRN. Robert sir, if you've doubts over my ability to volunteer a DRN case, please state so here and I'll leave volunteering here for good. Thank you! Yashovardhan (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Yashovardhan: You write "there exists no compiled set of rules for DRN". Perhaps we should attempt to create one, that has community input. Your list is your personal selection, would benefit from a debate. Your list should probably include a disclaimer in the interim so parties know wikipedia has no community discussed/voted DRN process guidelines yet. Second, you write, "I won't go through 1000 edits just to know what kind of person you are." That "to know what kind of person you are" is not the role of a DRN volunteer. The proper role is to "know what the dispute is, what content guidelines are, and how we can all help build a better wikipedia". When I wrote review the last 1000 edits, I was not asking that you look at diffs, I was asking you to just glance over the names the editors to know who the active editors and disputing parties really are. Thirdly, when you give leeway to one party, give the same leeway to another party, for fairness sake. We are all volunteers, and there is no reason to dictate, "She's given 24 hours from my last notice to do so. Robert is given 72 hours to file a statement above." A more appropriate suggestion would have been, "The time to respond is herewith extended from 24 hours to 72 hours." There is no emergency on wikipedia. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: With all due respect, I don't want to discuss further on this matter with you. I've withdrawn from the case so that another fairer volunteer could take over. @Robert McClenon: I'd still like your response here. Thank you! Yashovardhan (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Yashovardhan Dhanania, User:Ms Sarah Welch - First, this noticeboard is really for simple disputes that can be resolved within one to two weeks. Parties should be expected to respond relatively quickly. In general, giving a party 72 hours is not a good idea on this noticeboard, because it just gives them time to complete a wall of text. The usual principles of this noticeboard include that editors should be civil and concise, and should comment on content, not contributors. Non-concise statements typically only serve one purpose, which is to make the editor who posts them feel better; they don't usually explain the brief points. (If it is necessary to go into great detail about the past, you are commenting on contributors rather than on content.) I think that you, YD, made a good-faith mistake, but it was a mistake in favoring the editor who asked for more time. A compromise would have been to give both parties 48 hours. In general, editors shouldn't be given excessive time, and shouldn't expect it. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Second, it is true that DRN does not have a well-defined set of rules. That is on purpose, to give leeway to different moderators who have different styles, and so as not to formalize things too much. Some volunteers encourage or permit back-and-forth discussion by the participants, for instance, and it may work for them; I don't allow it (because I think that back-and-forth has usually already just resulted in restating of positions). I don't think that we need a community process to decide on the rules. If you want a more structured process, you can always request formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Third, I am not acting as a mediator in this case and was already planning to recuse because I have less-than-positive previous experience with these editors about this area. I have found one of the editors in this case to be hyper-verbose and prone to posting walls of text that do not clarify. The moderator is advised to use authority (see the mediation policy) to insist that posts be concise. I reserve the right to comment as an experienced editor on the case, without usurping the authority of the moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Fourth, I agree that it shouldn't be necessary for the moderator to read 1000 edits for any reason. The history shouldn't matter. The issue has to do with what should be the content of the article, not how it got where it is or who wrote what. Parties should be able to summarize what the dispute is concisely. If they can't, then maybe they are being unfocused, or maybe they are commenting on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Fifth, we again have a moderator. Answer his or her questions. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Thanks a lot! Yashovardhan (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. Your comment " First, this noticeboard is really for simple disputes that can be resolved within one to two weeks" is sobering, but enlightening. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Formal meditation?

@Winged Blades of Godric: commenting here as I don't want to disturb your process, going by the amount of material submitted (walls of text?) and by the very nature of repeated back and forth comments (and maybe attacks?), i believe this is better suited for formal meditation. What's your view and how do you plan to take it forward? Yashovardhan (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yashovardhan Dhanania:--Well,just taking a chance to see whether this hyper-verbose behavior stops.If there are more walls of text, I am closing this and following your way.Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winged Blades of Godric (talk • contribs) 17:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: That's fair enough (and this time really fair). By the way, a little off topic here but haven't heard from you by email. I know you've read my mails because I can see them in implantation. So busy lately? (reply by email or take it to my/your user talk). Yashovardhan (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Oops!Winged Blades ^Godric 16:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Given that DRN sometimes can be a stressful environment, I agree that meditation could be helpful. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris - Yes. Also, it is my understanding that meditation is an important part of most forms of Buddhism, and several of the approaches to meditation used in Western countries are of Buddhist origin. (This is not to disparage the traditions of meditation in other religions.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Now that's actually up to the parties involved to decide. Maybe the moderator could suggest this to them. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yashovardhan Dhanania: While you are giving suggestions, here is one for your consideration. After you "withdraw" from a dispute case, mean it. Withdraw completely. Don't participate. At all. Leave it to other volunteers. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll AGF here. I reserve my own right to offer suggestions to another volunteer. Whether it's accepted or not is again, the right and wish of the moderator. It must be noted that this was made as a regular editor and not as a DRN volunteer (in which case, I'd have made it at the case talk itself). Regards, Yashovardhan (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)