Proposal to eliminate the Needs Assist and Stale labels
The bot marks cases as Needs Assist and Stale when cases are current and in progress. The reason this happens (I believe) because the bot invokes those labels after a preset amount of time. Several of us have discussed this problem before and the preset date was extended (see prior discussion here) but it is still problematic and leads to confusion and frustration amongst volunteers and participants. I suggest we eliminate those labels and just have five status labels: NEW, IN PROGRESS, CLOSED, FAILED, RESOLVED. What do others think? Earwig, Guy Macon, TransporterMan-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
We don't need to eliminate the Needs Assist and Stale labels. We could simply make Needs Assist like the Resolved and Failed labels -- available but triggered by a volunteer choosing to manually set the status. Needs Assist could become a label that we could use to ask other volunteers to step in and help. :Also, we could keep Stale, but have it kick in after 42 days (6 weeks), which should almost never happen.
We could add instructions to our docs saying that Needs Assist is an invitation for any volunteer to jump in and help and that Stale means that any volunteer can jump in and close the case. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
That's OK with me if they are manually applied at the discretion of the DRN volunteer. Just please take them off automatic as they are currently disruptive rather than helpful. Same goes for the IN PROGRESS label which activates prematurely and keeps volunteers away rather than drawing them. See Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities case as an example.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Needassist currently kicks in after 5 days OR within 5 days and there's been a certain amount of text added since a volunteer weighed in. We could just remove the time period factor, keep the other field. (Sorry I've been away, work has been and still is hectic so I might be on/off too). StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes!09:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
In case you thought linking my username before would have notified me, that doesn't work if you link the wrong username. Right now, I'm unclear exactly what you want me to do. Can you lay all the changes out in one comment? — Earwigtalk17:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
It's really annoying when you folks suggest a change, have me implement it, and then act confused about it later. I can't understand which alternative is better. You seem to have a problem with in progress because it "keeps volunteers away", even though in progress used to be open (and still is in the bot's code), which is less ambiguous in that respect. I'll clarify that in progress's label is determined by a template, not the bot in any way. Do you not want a distinction between in progress and new? Then how do you distinguish between cases that are attended and unattended? Do you want to keep it but require volunteers to set it themselves? Then what's the point of the bot at all? It seems every aspect of the bot is constantly being called into question somehow. Not only that, but apparently I'm reluctant to fix problems despite numerous complaints. Well, in my opinion, I've made clear attempts to understand and work around a confusing process that I have no personal involvement in. This isn't working, so I've decided to shut down the clerkbot indefinitely. You know where the code is and you're welcome to adapt it yourself, as specified by the terms of the MIT License. Thanks. — Earwigtalk02:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
WTF? Did this admin seriously just get all pissy, take his ball and go home? What the fuck? (sorry but this deserves an outright use of the language). This needs some attention at AN. Sorry Earwig, but you have no right to do what you just did. It is actually great that you made the code and helped the board, but just because you feel slighted (from what i read) does not mean you can just tear down what you built. This is still Wikipedia is it not. Where was the discussion for your actions? Where is the consensus?--Mark Miller (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I am willing to (try) and get this bot running again (at least), but I am unsure how much maintenance I will be able to do on it in the near future. However, I will be able to run it 'as is' for a while, then attempt to impliment this change, if everyone is happy with this? --Mdann52talk to me!07:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Earwig, first let me start by saying that I know absolutely nothing about scripts or coding or bots or how they work, so this question may be a bit awkward. We had 3 automated processes at DRN: (a) Requesting and posting cases and notifying the participants; (b) the status block and its updating; and (c) archiving (c1) stale and (c2) closed cases. Which of those processes are affected by the closing of your bot? We need to know so that we know what to do manually. (Just for the record, I was okay with the bot working just as it did. Some of the suggestions, indeed most of the suggestions, were fine with me, but I was also fine with things as the way they were, which is the reason I never weighed in here about them.) I think that the closing of the bot only affects (b) and (c1). Is that right? If that's the case then we can muddle along until we come to agreement about how the (b) part should work. Thanks for all you've done. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I'm pretty sure the bot had nothing to do with (c) at all – normal archiving bots handled that. (b) was the bot's main job, and it also handled part of (a) (notifying participants if they weren't already notified, but this in itself is somewhat buggy). — Earwigtalk21:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
@The Earwig: Thank you for the clarification, Earwig, and for all the help and support you have provied. If we can get our act together, I hope we can call on you again. @All DRN volunteers: Okay, folks, all we have to do in lieu of the bot working is to make sure all participants are notified and to manually scan through the cases to check their statuses. We used to do that before the status box made it easier. We can also talk about what changes we want made to the status box, if we want it at all. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
@Mdann52:, if you could get some bot running temporarily (as DRN does have a fair bit of upkeep without it) at least for the time being, that'd be appreciated. Definitely agree the function of the bot needs to be re-thought, but I think the time that our volunteers have is best spent resolving disputes rather than doing filing work, so for the time being let's have a bot that does the basics (as the previous one did) and we can discuss the details about changing it below. StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes!09:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
@Steven Zhang: I am planning to submit a BRFA to get approval shortly (hopefully, we can push for speedy approval, especially as it is trusted existing code). I have not yet got it fully set up on labs, so I will have to run it manually from my PC for a few days, which is less than ideal, but should suffice. --Mdann52talk to me!10:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
But there is an active ANI about the editor. While that ANI is on another subject it does touch on this subject . if another volunteer would like to re-open it I will not object or revert.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
It's unfair to punish Tutelary for something that's unrelated to the complaint against me at ANI. Just take my name out of this and be done with it. I've just about had it with Wikipedia anyway. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
You seem to have a difficult time with perspective. I suggest you let this go. Further bad faith accusations will only be further example of why you have problems.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm inclined to reopen this, but I can't because I have a conflict of interest with one of the participants which might be seen as biasing my actions. It might help some other volunteer make that decision (i.e. either to reopen the case or second your action with a note here), Mark, if you might say how you see this case touching on the matter in dispute at ANI. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Teifling, the user who initiated the ANI discussion agrees that (1) this case has no connection to his ANI posting; and (2) this case is more important because it deals with an external matter. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I am the "Tutelary" that Baseball bugs is talking about. I filed the DRN because even after discussion on the talk page, and the reference desk we still disagree, but for different reasons. I feel that a mediator would be able to center the discussion on what actually matters, and in a civil position, decide what's the best course of reaction, especially due to WP:BLP (Though whether it applies is curious, that can be discussed too.) I still would like to participate in this DRN, thanks. Tutelary (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
More to the point - the discussion at the article talk page appears to be reaching a consensus, and this DRN case would likely not make the consensus arrive more quickly, nor is DRN a reasonable substitute for ongoing discussions at the article talk page. Collect (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
No, I believe that it is not. There is a discussion on that page, but no consensus. It evolved into trivialities in which I hope to solve here. Adding onto that, I have seen multiple DRN's closed because the main discussion was continuing on the talk page, which I hoped would not happen to this one. Tutelary (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Generally we don't allow issues to be active in more than one venue and I understand Mark Miller's concern. However, having looked the ANI I don't see any significant overlap and feel its OK to let the DRN case remain open on that basis. However, the discussion on the article talk page is ongoing and has not yet ripened to a degree in which DNR seems relevant. I would suggest the DRN be closed on that basis and that the discussion be given a chance to mature further. If there is still no successful outcome then I would suggest a WP:RfC with a notification at WP:BLPN. This issue concering method of death for a recently deceased person is a common BLP dispute.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't mind that the case has been re-opened, that is why I made the thread here, however, if you read the DRN it brings up the reference desk several times and the ANI is about Baseball bugs and the reference desk, then the ANI also touches on the DRN case. The issue is, we do not allow multiple venues for DR. This was pretty cut and dry to me. I suggest leaving this request open regardless of all concerns after it has since been re-opend by Guy. I think we should at least resepect the re-opening and allow the participants to go for it. Obviously I recuse my self.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
The reference desk was mentioned in the context that the dispute originally occurred in that situation, then that discussion was closed, moved to the talk page, where it still wasn't resolved. Tutelary (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Every day, the handful of volunteers here have to make decisions based on the consensus discussions we have had over opening and closing and other such matters. This had overlapping content and disputes/complaints found at other DR venues that we try to respect. The reference desk was not just mentioned. It appears to be a part of this dispute or it would not have been brought up. This is just a reason, it is not an excuse.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you referring to ANI? Because the Amanda Todd thing was not mentioned explicitly in terms of content, but in the formation that the DR close was unsuited. If you're referring to something else, please point it out. Tutelary (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
"Past dealing" DRN guideline
I have added content to our DRN guideline that were not previously there, that seem to be appropriate (the bolded parts are the new additions):
*If you have had past dealings (either positive or negative) with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in the dispute which would give the appearance of bias, do not act as a volunteer on that dispute or open or close the dispute. If an editor objects to your involvement in a case, you should withdraw from the case or initiate a discussion on the DRN talk page so the community can decide if a new volunteer should step in.
(Copied from my talk page:) I tweaked what Mark put in and removed the appearance part; the Wikipedia community is too narrow and our volunteer ranks are too small to get that restrictive, I'm afraid. Remember that the "real" rule is what's given in the header of the main DRN page and that it is very carefully balanced: It leaves the decision on bias up to the good faith of the volunteer unless someone objects (indeed anyone, not just a participant in the dispute) and then forces the volunteer to either step aside or take it to the DRN talk page for a decision. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Rather than point fingers and lay blame, let's take a fresh approach and define requirements for what the DRN bot should do. Frankly there are editors who are of the viewpoint "I said I wanted this three weeks ago when I told you about it yesterday, why isn't it implemented yet?" or "I think this is a good idea but I have no consensus discussion to back it up, so just make it happen". That certain volunteers have driven away one of the most prolific bot operators with constant haranging is a clear indicator that DRN does not have it's ducks in a row. Start by defining what the process should be, then define how the templates should be used, then define how the bot operates. I note from a quick review that there will need to be a handoff of the DRN case database so that we can continue forward. So can we agree to put down the clubs and work twords defining what the DRN process should be? Hasteur (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
That sounds like a pretty good plan to me. We've gone here at DRN from having a fearless leader who called most of the shots (i.e. Steve) to being largely on our own. If we're going to involve outside help like Earwig, then we need to be sure that we have consensus on what we're going to do before we ask for their help. I'm not casting any blame at anyone here; in the past even in Steve's absence any one of us who's had a good idea could propose it here on the talk page and unless someone objected then go ahead and boldly implement it. It's just that in this particular case the horse got somewhat in front of the cart. We're probably to the stage that we need to be more certain of agreement about changes here on the talk page before going forward individually with changes, perhaps with a going-once, going-twice kind of announcement procedure. Personally I think we can live without the status box until we can come to some agreement on how it should work, if the closing of the bot doesn't mess up other functions, such as request posting and participant notification. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I propose a new rule: we get to openly discuss anything bot-related on this talk page, but the bot operator (whoever that may be) is instructed to not interpret any such discussion as an instruction or request. When we have consensus as to what we want, we will post a request on the bot's talk page. The bot operator is very much welcome to join our discussion here, but only as an ordinary editor who happens to have a lot of knowledge about the bot.
And, if possible, I wouldn't mind if we came out of this with a bot that isn't named after a particularly disgusting insect. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
@TransporterMan:, yeah, I'm kinda sorry about that everyone (me abandoning DRN), life nowadays has become so overloaded with chapter work, my job, and work life that I just don't have time to scratch my butt, let alone lead a major Wikipedia process. It's kinda why I created the co-ordinator post, so they could pick up the torch from me on a rotating basis. I think that from the data that we've captured when I was a fellow, we know that in the past, the status box has helped as it's made us more aware that "oh crap, that dispute has been there for 3 days and no one has assisted with it" or "this has been stale for 3 days, maybe it's time to check up on it" rather than just guessing, or having to dig through threads manually. I think we need to maybe look back through recent time on DRN, and try and identify the shortcomings we face at the moment, and then look at ways to address the problems, then make changes based on those, rather than the "let's make this change, see if it works" approach that has occasionally been taken in the past.
Speaking personally, I'm going to commit to spending at least 1 hour a day on-wiki, every day. It's been far too long that I've not been on here, like, 6 months plus have barely been around, and I need to still be active here, both at DRN and elsewhere. It's probably going to take some time for me to be an effective mediator again (let's be honest, I've not done it much for three years) but I hope that I'll one day have enough free time to be like I used to be. For now, I'm just going to have to give it an hour a day. It's really all I have to spare. StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes!09:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: Having the bot operator develop code in isolation from the people who are going to be primarily interacting with the bot's output is a Grade-A recipe for disaster. If a discussion about changing the bot is brought up, before we get too far down the path of defining requirements, the bot operator should get the opportunity to say if certain things are bad ideas or will be particularly tricky to implement. Obviously the Bot Operator can at their discretion start working on mockups of how certain portions will work to make sure that we don't get into a tire swing disjunction. Hasteur (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea to ask the bot operator not to take a discussion as a request for any work. Let us come to a consensus before the operator begins the work. But I think the operator should be a part of any discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I fully agree with both of the comments above. Here is an idea I have used before: come up with a detailed procedure that tells a human to do what you want the bot to do, and have several volunteers follow the instructions, actind as a human bot. Meanwhile, refine the procedure, and when everyone is happy, them automate it. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I would also add that simple is good. I think the prior bot tried to get fancy and had too many features and too many labels for case status. Obviously we did not have a good system of communication with the bot manager because many DRN volunteers were very frustrated with the system and yet the way in which their feedback was communicated to the bot operator resulted in frustration from that end too. One idea is to have 3-4 experienced DRN volunteers set up a subcommittee and work with a new bot operator to design a simple system that meets the needs of the DRN volunteers. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I've updated the template using this version of the board. Please give your thoughts, and if you agree, please comment so at the bot approval request above so that we can put pressure on BRFA to let us move forward with the simple summary table. Hasteur (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Reminder to all volunteers
Especially while the bot is down, but really any time, remember that it is always best to identify yourself as a volunteer when you first edit a case. If you don't do that it isn't clear to the participants or to other volunteers why it is that you're editing the case, whether you're coming in as a volunteer or as a missed disputant or as a new disputant or something else. Welcoming the participants in the dispute is a good idea, too, as it helps set the tone for the case. How you do it is up to you, but I usually start my first edit with: "Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer here..." Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Filing of DRN first, and while open later filing of ANI, AE etc
Although the speedy close reason that ANI or AE already has jurisdiction at time of filing is clear enough, but the text does not say anything about what happens if the ANI/AE/etc is filed after the DRN case is already opened. Does venue auto-transfer at that point and if so can we say something that says so? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
This isn't documented because it depends on certain ANI/AE behaviors, but what usually happens is this; if the same person files at multiple venues we ask him if he wants to request a closing. If another party files at ANI or AE during an ongoing DRN, ANI and AE tend to kick it back to us and tell the person to finish the DRN case before filing elsewhere. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Notable exceptions include BLP violations, outing, and legal threats. Those have priority over any dispute resolution forum and get dealt with immediately. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd just like to butt in here and say that the ANI was not about the specific case of Amanda Todd, but Baseball Bug's behavior. It did not even touch on Amanda Todd, except in the case that the DR was unnecessarily closed. Guy then reopened it, and instructed it to continue. It should continue, and I am very willing to engage in it. Tutelary (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Speedy closing - Can long threads still fail the "extensive discussion" test?
This thread relates to this revert. I had tried to add the struck out text to the "no prior discussion" reason for speedy close
"Parties have not discussed the issue in detail in a talk page (the discussion can be in an article talk page or a user's talk page). The mere fact that one or more threads exist is insufficient. The thread(s) must clearly articulate desired content changes in order to avoid this pitfall."
Disclaimer, I'm an involved party in a current case in which this (in my opinion) is a factor. But I waive any claim of reliance on the outcome of this discussion in that case because I think it is still a good idea for other cases in the future.
POLL - Does a GishGallop-Forum thread satisfy the 'extensive discussion' criteria?
(A) Yes, if there are words on the talk page, DRN volunteers do not assess their content so we don't really label GishGallop/forum threads as GishGallop/forum threads.
(B) No, if DRN volunteers can't readily determine what specific content change is being advocated in the talk page thread, or the specific reasoning in support, then the WP:BRD cycle is incomplete and DRN is premature.
1. The instructions don't say some random "extensive discussion" must exist in the ether. Rather, the instructions say the specific desired changes have to be discussed. By their nature, GishGallop/forum postings do not articulate a specific desired change or the reasoning for it and should not count.
2. In WP:BRD it is implicit that the D has to specifically relate to the B. GishGallop/forum threads that fail to say "I want change X because Y based on RS-1 and -2" (or equivalent) do not satisfy the "D" in BRD.
3. Pursuant to WP:TALK, editors may delete other editors' GishGallop/forum threads as being "off-topic". A deletable off-topic discussion should not be credited with satisfying DRN's "extensive discussion" criteria.
A. (I would have worded A differently, but close enough). The extensive discussion rule was created to handle the extremely common case where someone files without even trying to resolve the dispute through discussion on the article talk page. If we expand it to include what someone subjectively considers the wrong sort of discussion, we could potentially reject any filing; they would be here if the talk page discussion had gone well. It addition, we could deny dispute resolution to someone simply because they don't understand Wikipedia policies, This is WP:CREEP and is an answer to a non-problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
It's wrong to call this a rule change (i.e., an expansion). You're ignoring reality that the talk page guidelines already forbid forum postings, and by definition forum postings are not by someone "trying to resolve the dispute through discussion". The TPG already authorizes any editor to exercise judgment in the identification of forum postings, and even to remove forum postings by other editors ("It is still common to simply delete gibberish, comments or discussion about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article)..." The proposal simply clarifies - rather than change or expand - the "extensive discussion" rule by importing an existing community standard from the talk page guidelines. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
DRN is not required to repurpose the talk page guidelines as a guide to whether or not to close a case early. That's not what the talk page guidelines were designed to be. Again, you are asking DRN volunteers to pass judgement on behavioral issues. We don't go there, for the same reason that Arbcom does not rule on content disputes. Wikipedia has a well-thought-out system; administrators (who have to pass RfA votes) have real power over users and deal with user conduct issues. DRN volunteers (anyone can sign up as a DRN volunteer, even an IP with no previous edits) have, by design, zero power over users and deal only with article content disputes. In the DRN case you were recently involved in, you might have noticed that I did not close the case when the IP made legal threats, because legal threats, like forum postings, are user behavior issues, not article content issues. I asked an administrator to deal with it. BTW, it works the other way as well, while an administrator can get involved in an article content issue, WP:INVOLVED says that he must from that point on act as an ordinary editor, neither using or threatening to use his administrative tools. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Trouble is, when the talk thread is a forumish general discussion then there is no content dispute. We agree DRN is for content disputes. Threads that hold forumish general discussion are not articulating a content dispute and are should not be allowed access to DRN. Volunteers who take on such cases are rewarding disruptive behaviors. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your edit summary ("volunteers who accept cases based on FORUM postings are rewarding disruptive behavior") access to DRN is not a reward, blocking access to DRN is not a punishment, and DRN volunteers are ordinary editors who, like yourself, purposely have no power to reward or punish a user based upon his behavior. All we are allowed to do is to refer it to an admin. You can restate it any way you wish, but if it involves a DRN volunteer deciding that a user has violated a conduct policy or guideline and taking any action other than alerting an administrator, it is not going to happen.
Regarding your claim above, whether someone turns a talk page into a forum and whether they are involved in a content dispute are completely unrelated concepts. If an editor makes an edit -- any edit -- and another editor reverts, that, by definition, is a content dispute. If an editor suggests a change to an article and another editor disagrees, that is also a content dispute. He can suggest a change without treating the talk page like a forum, he can treat the talk page like a forum without suggesting a change, he can do neither, or he can do both. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Reverts doesn't establish a content dispute for DRN. Extensive discussion of the pros/cons of the reverted text does that. On a regular basis, DRN volunteers pass judgment on the ed behavior of not starting a talk thread. When the thread says "blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah" without actually discussing the he pros/cons of the reverted text, ya'll should not reward that behavior any more than you reward the behavior of starting no thread at all. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Again you confuse the concept "content dispute without discussion" with "no content dispute". If someone literally posts "blah-blah-blah...", after an edit/revert, there is a content dispute, but no discussion. In the case you were involved in, the IP editor did not literally post "blah-blah-blah...". He posted reasons for his desired changes. Largely invalid reasons, but that it what DRN is for; having an impartial third party who doesn't take sides carefully explain what would constitute a valid reason for making a change. Nor should you assume that your preferred version is above criticism. Obvious examples: The lead does not make it clear that global warming conspiracy theorists exists, legitimate critics of the mainstream view concerning global warming exist, and that the two are not the same. In my opinion the article overall does not show a neutral point of view but instead shows mild advocacy. (Note that this does not imply that the article should imply that the conspiracy theories are legitimate; see Moon landing conspiracy theories for a good example of an article that has a neutral point of view when reporting on a conspiracy theory that has little or no evidence to support it).
I am not going to respond to any further sentences that you write that contain the word "reward". Access to DRN is not a reward for good behavior, and DRN volunteers do not punish editors or withhold rewards. I don't know how I can possibly make this more clear. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
About time we make room for others to weigh in anyway. Especially people from outside the example dispute. I'll work on getting attention to this later on. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The "no extensive discussion" rule (MedCom has the same rule; at 3O it's "no thorough discussion") exists to help preserve the collaborative wiki nature of Wikipedia and to say to editors, in effect, "If you have disagreements with other editors you are expected to collaborate on working them out. If you do not desire to do that, then your dispute will remain unresolved (see WP:CONS#No consensus). Dispute resolution cannot be used as a court to adjudge your disagreement and can be used to facilitate your discussions only after you have shown a more-than-just-a-gesture effort to work them out yourself." I have closed discussions which had walls of text from both sides on the article talk page because once you eliminated all the conduct accusations and name-calling and bias, POV, and COI allegations there was little or nothing left about the content matter in dispute. I do not think that I would close one for this reason because of GishGalloping or forum-like discussion or other wall of text behavior. So I guess that I would vote C-tending-to-A because there are mere words — conduct (and related administrative matters) — which I would disregard but if there is an extensive back-and-forth discussion over anything else I probably wouldn't invoke inadequate discussion. (Just in passing: I would probably have closed this particular case as being primarily a conduct matter based on the filing editor's "How do you think we can help?" statement since he was complaining about editor bias which is a conduct matter, not a content matter. But except in cases where another volunteer — typically an very inexperienced volunteer — has made a clear and absolute error in opening a case, I will not second-guess another editor's decision to take or open a case.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I would generally echo Tman's comments. I don't think this point needs this much analysis. I think it's up to the volunteer moderator whether he/she wants to accept a case or not. If someone does a speedy close for lack of 'extensive discussion' and someone else objects, then they can bring it here at the talk page for consideration by the group. Personally I would like the the guideline changed to "significant discussion". I feel we are here to facilitate the collaborative processand we don't want to get overly caught up in rules and measurements of what constitutes extensive discussion or not.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Discussion of the reverted edit related to this principle
If there is consensus that GishGallop/forum threads don't open the door to DRN then there are various ways to address that. I'm not wedded to my approach but until someone offers another suggestion I think we should add this to the project page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
It's been archived twice by the bot and is still looking for resolution. It's over a week and a half old dispute. Tutelary (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't have time to read the whole thing right now, but under "Opening", there should be instructions for how one can update the case status if they are not currently listed as a volunteer. In fact I'd recommend including all of the information necessarily to handle a case "manually" if necessary. DonIago (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Good point Doniago. The status of the DRN bot is in question. Right now everything is being done manually as we wait for assistance from Hasteur and others. I think some form of the bot will be restored fairly soon so I'm reluctant to add new instructions until that is settled. However, others are free to add manual instructions, either for registered or unregistered DRN volunteers, if they feel strongly about it. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Reminder: The current proposal on the table is to only do the summary table ({{DRN case status}}) and nothing else. Once we have approval for that, I think defining what each of the statuses means and when it's appropriate for the case to have the status. Hasteur (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I've listed myself as acting coordinator in lieu of Steven Zhang's early departure from the role.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Keithbob, we may need you to hold over a few days into June. Since Thehistorian10, the person signed up for June-July, has not edited WP since October 20, I emailed him and received a prompt reply back that he does intend to return and take the position once his university exams are complete on June 4, but that he may not be able to do much until after that date. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'm pretty busy myself these days but I seem to be able to find an hour most days to come to DRN and do some coordination work. Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
At present the project page says the coordinator role is vacant. I thought that would auto update after I put the coordinator template on my Volunteer template [1] but that hasn't happened. Any ideas?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about all the fuss regarding my term as coordinator - real life got in the way (mostly University exams - but I'm back, and ready to begin my term. I would however like someone else in the background to "guide" me on what to do for the first few days. I've had a look at the current status of the cases we're currently hearing, and they're either closed or being dealt with. --The Historian (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Welcome Thehistorian10 (talk·contribs) and thanks for volunteering at DRN. Have you registered as a DRN volunteer? [2]. If not, can you do that now? Also, I'm curious how many DRN cases you have moderated, closed etc.? I'm happy to give up my current role as substitute coordinator for the prior aborted coordinator-ship but want to be sure I'm giving it over to reliable hands. The job consists mainly of housekeeping tasks ie summarizing and closing cases that have been resolved or failed or which don't meet our requirements etc. Also checking to be sure the bot has notified all participants, that there has been sufficient talk page discussion, that discussion is not taking place in other venues etc. In summary the coordinator's job is to make sure DRN runs smoothly and successfully and that generally requires a bit of time on a daily basis. It can get quite intense with DRN having as many as 15-20 cases at one time. Unless you have a lot of DRN experience that I'm not aware of it may be better to wait rather then jumping in as coordinator. What do you think? Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Looking at your contribution list I see that you have done some prior work at DRN, so I'm going to hand the coordinator job over to you now. Hopefully you will be able to visit WP and DRN more regularly than you have in the past as the coordinator needs to give the board regular attention. Good luck, if you have any questions or need help just leave a note on my user talk page. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, I see you have registered as a DRN volunteer here however since you are now coordinator I would suggest (though it's not required) that you make an entry for yourself at this page as well so participants will have a sense of who you are. Also, you can respond with 'yes' to the coordinator question and that will be noted in your entry. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
NOTE: The Historian has only made one edit since Oct 2013 and that was the above comment on June 5th. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
@Thehistorian10:: Let me second what Keithbob's said above. He, I, and others are willing and able to back you up while you get your feet on the ground, but we really need you to be here and active on a daily basis or as near to that as possible. With the maintenance bot down, there's a particular need to keep an eye on everything. In light of your long time away, it might be best if you were to give up the coordinator position, come back to work as an ordinary volunteer and learn the ropes and the everyday flow again, then sign up for a later coordinator spot. What do you think? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Since The Historian has only made one edit in the past 7 months, has not responded to a ping from four days ago, and we are already two weeks into the scheduled coordination period, I have re-listed myself, and re-assumed the role of DRN volunteer coordinator. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Idea: Limit DRN cases to three parties or more?
This is very off-the-cuff...having just worked through my first DRN case (or at least the first that I couldn't close immediately on procedural grounds), I'm wondering whether DRN cases should require a minimum of three involved parties, with two-party cases being referred to the third-opinion noticeboard. In my experience 3O is generally a more expeditious process for two-party disputes, and it might free up some resources here to focus on more involved cases.
That is an interesting idea. We would, of course, have to take care that someone does not game the system by claiming two parties when there are more or claiming more when there are two, but a DRN volunteer should take a good look at the article talk page and add/remove parties anyway.
Do you think that it would be worthwhile bringing this up at the 3O talk page and seeing what they think of the idea? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
The more the merrier, though I think linking them to this discussion should suffice, and centralized discussion is, in my experience, always preferable. I suppose it might increase the volume at 3O a bit, but I don't really see it being unmanageable. I forgot to mention this in my initial post, but we could perhaps make allowances for 3O filings that failed to garner attention...though I don't imagine there are that many of those. DonIago (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd be opposed to that. Though they overlap, the two processes are sufficiently different that they both have value. In its ideal state, a 3O should be just an opinion, take it or leave it, with no follow-up mediation by the opinion-giver. DRN can provide an opinion (and overlaps with 3O to that extent) or can provide mediation, or both. Moreover, 3O is rightly seen as an entrance point for volunteers first becoming involved in dispute resolution and should not be regarded by the consumers of 3O's as anything more than an offhand opinion by a neutral party. As I almost always include in my 3O's: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." DRN is much, much more, both for disputes with just 2 participants and for those with more. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough; it was just a thought. Perhaps another option might be suggesting that potential submitters here might get faster resolution at 3O? DonIago (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Don, that's always an option for the responding volunteer if s/he thinks a 3O might be a better choice. It's always an acceptable option for a volunteer to refer a case to another DR forum rather than take it here. Indeed, the original concept of DRN was that most cases would be referred, that DRN would mostly be a clearinghouse, and only the absolutely most simple and easily addressed disputes would be dealt with here. That vision for DRN never materialized (eh, Steve?), but the freedom to refer still remains in place. Best regards (and sorry for the slow response), TransporterMan (TALK) 21:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Right, but I think it might be worthwhile to include it someplace where a disputant is likely to see it before they even file a case. I just wonder how many cases could be taken care of with a 3O but end up here because the disputant is aware of this noticeboard but not that one. I'm only suggesting a quick blurb, and we could even make it clear that DRN remains an option if 3O doesn't help. DonIago (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Is DRN only for the article space? Or can it be used for wiki guidelines, the MOS, template docs and so on? The guide doesn't appear to say anything either way. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
DRN is for content disputes; policies/guidelines/essay/MOS are not content. At least, IMO. It's my understanding that the guideline for such things is that you don't change them unless and until you establish a consensus to do so. DonIago (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
If by content we mean article content (and nothing else), then the guide should be clarified to say article content instead of merely implying it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with The Don regarding policies/guidelines, i.e. rules-y kind of stuff, but I think the header is fine as currently stated. I think that we need to preserve a bit of flexibility here. Our mission is to help resolve disputes (a) about stuff other than conduct and (b) without interfering in other processes. I agree on the rules because rules formation and modification is a process all of its own whose integrity needs to be maintained without scattering discussion all over the wiki. When we get down to disputes over other less critical stuff then "content" DR may sometimes lend a hand. I'd prefer not to legislate ourselves into a corner, but with the understanding that we should probably only occasionally step out of that corner even though we're not painted into it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Proposed revision to volunteer guide
Current text: No volunteer owns a particular case. If another volunteer participates in a case you opened, welcome them. Conversely, if you have something to contribute to a case that already has a volunteer, you should feel free to post your comments. You may choose to identify yourself as a volunteer, and state that you are merely contributing as a editor; or you may wish to state that you will be assisting with the mediation. If you join in a case that is already in progress with another volunteer, be respectful of what is being done by that volunteer. If you have taken the lead in a case but cannot continue for some reason, post a notice in the case's Discussion section and ask for another volunteer to take over on the DRN talk page.
Proposed text: If you would like to contribute to a case that already has a volunteer moderator, feel free to add your insights regarding the content under discussion. Identify yourself as a volunteer and state that you are merely contributing as an editor. If you wish to assist in leading the mediation process, it may be best to contact the DRN volunteer on their talk page and express your desire to help. This is a way of showing respect for the current volunteer moderator and avoiding an interruption of the resolution strategy already underway. If you feel that a case is not being handled or moderated properly by another DRN volunteer then bring you concerns to the moderator's talk page or to the DRN talk page for community discussion. If you are moderating a case but cannot continue for some reason, post a notice in the case's Discussion section and on the DRN talk page asking for another volunteer to take over the discussion you have started.
(A) I would like to see an enumerated list of the goals this change seeks to accomplish, and a diff demonstrating what would be changed. It's hard to compare full paragraphs without these aides.
(B) A specific comment off the cuff.... I like the opening sentence "No volunteer owns a particular case". IMO, this is important text consistent with the notion that volunteers are mere editors without any special deputy or demigod powers. It's important to foster - each day - community trust in this process, and that's only possible if the image volunteers project is that of helpful humility.
Thanks for the comments. My new text is an attempt to: a) avoid the confrontational flavor of the first sentence [No volunteer owns a particular case] b) describe a more diplomatic way of entering a case already being moderated c) generally improve the language and flow of the paragraph.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Hammers are either tools or weapons depending on your point of view; Same with any language that explicitly notes a limitation on power. The sentence 'No volunteer owns a particular case' is the hammer. In my view, it is a tool that builds trust, not a weapon that destroys. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC) PS Here's a few extra words that IMO preserves the tool function while maybe averting some readers perception of confrontation. "When more than one editor wants to serve as a volunteer mediator for the same case, theyeach must exercise extra care to collaborate. Cases are not "owned" by any volunteer." NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I do like the removal of the "No volunteer owns a particular case" statement. There's been a few cases where many volunteers pulling in multiple different directions actually caused more disruption than the disputants themselves. i.e. It's better to keep extra cooks out of the kitchen so that they can step in if the grill goes up in fire and Ramsay pulls you off the station. (Mixed Hell's Kitchen (U.S. TV series) metaphor) Hasteur (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I like the proposed text, though I'd suggest a few tweaks for additional clarity:
If you would like to contribute to a case that already has a volunteer moderator, feel free to add your insights regarding the content under discussion. Identify yourself as a volunteer and state that you are merely contributing as a regularan editor, not as a volunteer. If you wish to assist in leading the mediation process, it may be best to contact the DRN volunteer moderator on their talk page and express your desire to help. This is a way of showing respect for the current volunteer moderator and avoiding an interruption of the resolution strategy already underway. If you feel that a case is not being handled or moderated properly by another DRN volunteer then bring you concerns to the moderator's talk page or to the DRN talk page for community discussion. If you are moderating a case but cannot continue for some reason, post a notice in the case's Discussion section and on the DRN talk page asking for another volunteer to take over the discussion you have started.
I agree that the replacement of the old the-more-the-merrier strategy reflects current and best practices here at DRN. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, good comments and feedback. Combining suggestions from NewsGuy and T-man I propose this version below:
If you would like to contribute to a case that already has a volunteer moderator, feel free to add your insights regarding the content under discussion. Identify yourself and state that you are merely contributing as a regular editor, not as a volunteer. If you wish to assist in leading the mediation process, it may be best to contact the DRN volunteer moderator on their talk page and express your desire to help. A case is not "owned" by any one volunteer however, this is one way of showing respect for the current moderator and avoiding an interruption of the resolution strategy already underway. If you feel that a case is not being handled or moderated properly by another DRN volunteer then bring your concerns to the moderator's talk page or to the DRN talk page for community discussion. If you are moderating a case but cannot continue for some reason, post a notice in the case's Discussion section and on the DRN talk page asking for another volunteer to take over the discussion you have started.
Thanks folks, I've made the change here. I"m glad we were able to get a consensus, otherwise we might have had to take this discussion to DRN. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Moderator needed
The participants at this DRN case are eagerly awaiting a moderator. I don't feel comfortable taking the case as I have editing experience with two of the four participants (albeit on unrelated topics). So it might be best for someone else to step in.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I hope someone will chime in. I'd consider wading in myself, but I just had a miniature disaster at work and am not really in a mental state where taking on a DRN case would be in anyone's best interests. DonIago (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
As fate would have it the two main parties have said they are working things out on the talk page and have requested the case be closed. Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
This is not a productive discussion. MrScorch has taken the case. Others may participate as they wish. Let's start over and focus on article content not each other. --Keithbob 17:40 June 23, 2014
So my perspective mediator's first two edit summaries were "Directing a specific warning at Atlantictire for their behavior" and "Giving my 2 bits again because recipient appears to be in a IDHT coma."
Yes, I am at my wit's end and keeping my cool is becoming difficult. That's why I'm here.
I comment at AN/I now, because I'd like admins to get better at taking the time to learn about content and the context of a dispute... not just look for obvious violations of WP:CIVIL made by incredibly frustrated people.
Let's not get touchy right off the bat because someone is saying, woah woah, it's way too soon for you to know the context and yes, in fact, I am angry and that's why I'm here. I'm here instead of edit warring.
I'm not encouraged by Hasteur's introduction. Somebody else... someone who's willing to reserve judgement and patiently look over sources.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I treated you with kid gloves the first time making the suggestion that you've already thrown lots of personal attacks around after you were cautioned not to do so by the opening volunteer edit, and should pull back on the statements I indicated. That you then decided to bring me into the dispute as well indicates that you are the problem. I would also note that you have thrown more personal attacks than anybody else in the thread. If you continue on such personal attack routes, I have absolutely not doubt that even with your begging not to not treat this as a conduct dispute, the volunteers will see a conduct dispute and punt your Napoleon complex out untill you decide to commit a greater fault or decide to retract the accusations. I would also note that your content/conduct ratio (especially taking into account your AN/I comments) is significantly below snuff and would suggest that those people who live in glass houses should not be throwing rocks. Hasteur (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
"I treated you with kid gloves." Please. Someone who's not here to do a Dr. Phil impersonation.
I've said my bit, but strongly encourage MrScorch6200 and the DRN cordinator to hold a very tight leash on any vaguely incivil remarks as it's clear that this user has a specific agenda in mind that is 100% incompatible with the stated purpose of DRN. Hasteur (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Believe me, I'm going to try my best to keep everyone in-line. I will not hesitate to throw this case in the bin. Thanks for the suggestion. Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb)21:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
This needs to be about whether we are following the sources and working collaboratively. Not about making snap judgments about behavior and scolding, and not about egos. Yes, when I feel like I'm being passive-aggressively manipulated, IRL I get very frank and, uh, cut to the chase. I realize here that's called "incivility." This is what I'm trying to avoid. Hasteur, I'm sorry we got off to the wrong start but we definitely don't need any more, as you say, "gasoline on the fire."--Atlantictire (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but I need to make sure that we focus solely on the content dispute by not worrying about conduct. Conduct shouldn't be discussed here anyway, but there is usually a slight tolerance. Discussing conduct of a user usually brings out emotion and I want to stay away from that. I hope that we can make progress tomorrow. Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb)21:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Hasteur, I have full faith in Mr. Schorch's ability to handle the case but I'll be keeping a close eye on things in case he needs any assistance or participants need any reminders about appropriate behavior.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Just as Keithbob said above: Enough. I believe progress can still be made here if everyone will just stop grinding these axes and let MrScorch6200 do his job. If the listing party wishes to withdraw, that is his prerogative and he may do so by saying so on the main page, but nothing is being accomplished by this discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC) (as frequent DRN volunteer)
*cough* Over 2/3 of this diff is nothing but attacks on the opponent in the dispute. Since the warning has already been made would Keithbob or MrScorch6200 like to forcably disemvowel the post to remind a certain editor what behavior will and will not be tolerated? Hasteur (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
@Hasteur: Atlantictire apologized for his last statement and still notes he wants to talk things out. I am not taking any action on this because he clearly apologized and this wasn't as outspoken like some of his other comments. Thanks, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb)01:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
"Forcibly disembowel"? Hasteur I'm finding your conduct absolutely appalling. I've heard nothing from you but hostility and personal attacks. You made a snap judgement about me, decided to scold and insult me, and now are undermining the thread from the talk page with more hostile and insulting comments. I hope you don't think DRN gives you license to verbally abuse fellow editors.
Please do not comment on this case anymore either in the thread or on the talk page. Personally, I think you feel embarrassed that I objected to your inappropriate comments, and you are retaliating by trying to sabotage the discussion. I do not trust you and do not want your "help." Steven Zhang, MrScorch6200 is doing just fine but Hasteur is making things worse.--Atlantictire (talk) 07:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Atlantictire If you had bothered to educate yourself, you would have seen that disemvowel (which I linked to a dictionary definition) is to remove vowels from a posting to make a posting an effective non-entity. But 10 points on Assuming Bad Faith... Hasteur (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Ugh, upon seeing that name pop up here (I commented on a DRN a few weeks ago, so this is on watch-list automatically) I have to chime in and say that whatever problems you're having with this user, they should be viewed in context of his history of personal attacks and all-around sub-par behavior. Blocked for a day, blocked for 3 days, calling editors bigots, racists, and the ever-popular eat my fuck line. Tarc (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh god, now Tarc with the ad hominem attacks? TARC? Seriously? Tarc was the infamous, now-deleted Jews and Communism defenders' go-to guy for character assassination. All this "bad behavior" on my part that Tarc is alluding to stems from blind outrage over his and others' defense of a Wikipedia article that had been plagiarized from a hate site.
Jews and Communism was a special case. Process had failed multiple times. The admins were passive. People didn't know up from down anymore and Wikipedia was losing it's moral bearings. I come from the world of punk rock and some of my heroes are great poets of incivility. I made a very conscious decision in that case to operate Kobayashi Maru on WP:CIVIL. There are just some taboos that need to be enforced.
I've been trying to convince some of the editors who were involved in that very sordid and disgraceful episode that Wikipedia is not in fact hopelessly corrupt and that they should stick around. Sadly, this experience so far has been very discouraging.
@Transporterman regarding whether I want to continue. Hasteur needs to stay out. I think I understand now where his animosity is coming from. From now on this is not his affair. Not in the thread. Not on the talk page.--Atlantictire (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
This is not the place for airing one's grievances whether they be content or conduct related. If any parties wish to pursue this matter please consult WP:DRR to get an overview of options. Alternately anyone is free to contact me on my user talk page and I will answer any questions or assist in any way that I can. That said it's time to close this discussion and move on. Thanks. — Keithbob • Talk • 23:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC) DNR volunteer coordinator
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.
I posted a more lengthy description on a page that I thought was for reporting about editors who intimate and harass other editors, on the administrative noticeboard, but was redirected here.
Basically, I am concerned regarding the deterioration in communications toward me by editor User:Montanabw, which have been over the top, intimidating, harassing, and ugly, as can be observed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Standardbred. I would have expected the communications from an 8-year veteran on Wikipedia to be much better than what I've experienced. As a result, I will never again edit the article, Standardbred, and I have been left very disillusioned and disappointed that such conduct is acceptable on Wikipedia. I've attempted to discuss it on the editor's talk page and on the article's talk page, with a continued worsening of communications by this editor; see her comments on my talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daniellagreen. She has threatened to report me for harassment simply for posting comments on her talk page, and to me, has evidenced communications to me that are harassing and unnecessary. Rather than my comments be a "waste" of her time, as she has stated, one could be open to compromise and a different viewpoint regarding this situation. Daniellagreen (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
@Daniellagreen: to request dispute reolution you must use the request form here. What you posted to here is the talk page, which is used for discussing DRN procedures and for general use between DRN volunteers. Once that is done, you'll see your case on the main project page and a volunteer will be with you promptly. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb)01:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, Daniellagreen, DRN is for moderated discussions of content only. It sounds to me like you have a behavioral issue and may need go to a different venue. To see the various options for content or conduct disputes take a look at WP:DRR.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I've just looked at the thread at WP:ANI which can be seen here. It appears you have a content dispute that you are personalizing.Because you mixed content and behavior complaints, your case was rejected at WP:ANI. If you want to have a moderated discussion about the CONTENT dispute and you are willing to drop the drama about other editor's motives and behavior then you may open a case here at DRN. If you feel that an editor has violated WP's guidelines for behavior such as WP:NPA, then you can take your case back to WP:ANI and give diffs (URL"s to specific edits) that demonstrate misbehavior, but do not discuss the content issues. I would caution you though that your own behavior will be examined and by going to WP:ANI you may be placing yourself at risk per WP:BOOMERANG. My suggestion to you is to drop the stick and walk away and find other areas of interest on WP. If you are not wiling to do that then you may open a case here at DRN and discuss the CONTENT only. Bear in mind that other party(s) may or may not participate as is their right. Third option is to go back to WP:ANI but I personally don't recommend that. However, the choice is yours. Furthermore, you may visit WP:DRR to see other choices for dispute resolution. Good luck. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
As I posted there, the user made a COI edit here, is sad/mad that I reverted her edit and so posts this nasty attack at my talk, which I moved to the article talk, then the user followed by a round of edits adding little to the article save for incorrectly formatted and adding poor sourcing to existing content from a commercial, non-RS site, for which I took time away from other project to clean up here and while I was at it, I did take her comments that the article is weak and did a wee bit of overdue minor copyediting on the old material as well. There is really no content dispute to discuss unless this editor is ready to stop the tl;dr stuff and start listening. I have no interest in dragging this out, it's already wasted enough of my time. Montanabw(talk)20:23, 26 June 2014 (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.
Dispute resolution reference tool
I've been working on expanding WP:DRR. It's a graphic overview of all the dispute resolution venues available for both content and conduct. I think it's a valuable tool when counseling DRN participants about their potential next steps. The WP:DR page has great information but it can be a little overwhelming especially for new or intermediate level users. So I'm letting folks know about this other, more visual, overview of options. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Nice! Don't forget, though, that serving as coordinator automatically also gives you a DRN Award, Grade 1, with a step-up in grade for each additional time you serve as coordinator up to a maximum of Grade 3. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Over the past couple of weeks I have run into what I can only describe as some kind of a group of Germany page editors who are repeatedly removing and reverting legitimate edits to the Germany page. These edits, I feel, follow the standard practices of Wiki editing, eg. removing POV. I have no idea how to deal with these editors who seem to have nothing less than a fanatical zeal to keep the Wiemar and Nazi section of the article exactly as it was before. Do you have any advice on what should be done in this type of situation. It seems more than apparent that using the talk page is useless (we've been having a conversation there for 2 weeks now without anything being resolved) and these editors have created so many new sections that it's absolutely impossible to have a discussion. Their constant argument is that: "This is an FA article and has been for a long time therefore it should always remain unchanged" no matter how obvious the omission of facts may be. Any help or advice you can give would be greatly appreciated, another editor, an administrator User:John has mentioned that article would no longer qualify as an FA article, would downgrading the article's ranking change anything or simply result in more unstoppable blocking by these users?Monopoly31121993 (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
If you would like to request dispute resolution please use the form here. This talk page is only used for questions about DRN or improving the DRN experience etc,. A volunteer should be with you promptly on the main project page. Thanks! MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb)23:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
You are welcome to file a case here at DRN but keep in mind it is a moderated discussion of content only. Accusations of bad faith and POV pushing by other editors need to be left at the door. Alternately you could open a discussion at the WP:NPOVN noticeboard or start an WP:RFC. Or assess your other options by going to WP:DRR. Good luck to you, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Moderator needed
Moderator needed for the Ghana case. I have a history with one of the participants and must recuse. If someone else could step in that would be great. Thanks! :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The Siduri Project: what are we allowed to develop on our user pages?
I'm closing this off topic discussion and moving the conversation to the user's talk page. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)(DRN Volunteer Coordinator)
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, I'm trying to develop a project to improve Wikipedia's Siduri page with custom community created multimedia and programs. This approach, if successful, could be used on other pages and hopefully make Wikipedia a more effective method for transmitting information to a visitor. An administrator deleted everything, and now I am unsure what to do and what the correct Wikipedia rules and regulations are. Are we not allowed to use our user pages to develop projects aimed at improving Wikipedia? It would be ironic, and somewhat sad, if a project aimed at improving Wikipedia was not welcome on Wikipedia.Siduri-Project (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Please see the note at the top of this page: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dispute resolution noticeboard page". I suggest you discuss the issue with the admin concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thank you Andy, the admin deleted the content again. How can we discuss whether content is appropriate or not if it keeps being deleted before it can be discussed? Hopefully we can find a reasonable solution, I will need to check Wikipedia's rules, this doesn't seem right. Anyway, I appreciate that this conversation is off-topic for this thread, so I will try to reach an agreement with the admin, or move off-site while finding the correct Wikipedia avenue to report this.Siduri-Project (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice Keithbob, the block in question has now been removed, but we've run into another problem and had to put the Creative Commons multimedia creation component of the project on hold so we can review if this component, as currently proposed in the provisional plan, is allowed on Wikipedia under the current Wikipedia regulations. An initial interpretation of the rules seems to be that community created Wikipedia article customized multimedia is allowed on Wikipedia if it is uploaded to Wikimedia with a Creative Commons license. Would you perhaps be able to advise me if there is a Wikipedia forum or other page where I could check if this interpretation of the rules is correct?Siduri-Project (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Siduri, Sorry to cut you off but this is really not an appropriate discussion for this DRN talk page. Therefore I'm going to close this thread and respond on your user talk page. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC) (DRN Volunteer Coordinator)
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.
Editor Denisona out of control
Glad it was resolved, but wrong place for this discussion
This is the second time Denisona has randomly deleted strictly accurate and duly sourced material from an article.
This time, I added it back with the proper attribution and a statement that some authorities (to wit, Denisona) seem to disagree.
I see that I am FAR FROM the only person who has had issues with this person, for whom Denisova is a more appropriate moniker, if you get the pun . . .
What to do? I am tired of obnoxious three-day bans and such because I disagree with editors who take it upon themselves to be capricious, subjective, and, above all, asinine.
I don't really have the time to work on it right now (though I could maybe look into it next week), but this section should really be expanded and clarified; as-is it doesn't actually detail everything that should be done when closing a case for inappropriateness. If nothing else, bolding the templates that should be added in the example might be helpful. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Good catch. I've just now copy edited and reorganized the Closed section a bit. However other volunteers should feel free to amend and/or add to the content there as needed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Abiogenesis
I closed Talk:Abiogenesis as a violation of CANVASS, but the listing editor reverted my closure. I've re–closed it, but would invite any other regular volunteer here to examine my closure and reopen the case if they feel that my closure was inappropriate. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Look, I've told you already that I wasn't canvassing, and if it seems like I have been, that was not my intention. The last time I opened a DRN, it was shut down because I was the only person supporting my position. I was told it was a one-against-many situation and the consensus could not be turned because of just one person. Now I've asked users who have previously attempted to do just what I've tried to do to support me, since clearly nobody on this board will consider a lone editor's opinion. How can this be put down as canvassing? Furthermore, the user who filed this request clearly included all the editors who opposed the motion too. Now I don't see why there is a problem, since people of both viewpoints were invited to the discussion. If I hadn't asked the other users who supported my position to contribute, the case would have been rejected just like it was last time. Please re-open that thread, I ask you again. ReallyFat B.18:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
ReallyFatB. I believe that your canvassing was done innocently and without malice. There are a lot of rules and procedures on WP and it takes a long time to learn them. On the other hand I have to agree with T-Man's closing of the case because there are other issues that make the DRN request inappropriate. There were 14 users involved in the talk page discussion and only 2-3 of them were listed as DRN participants. In addition the filing party listed several other participants who were not involved in the talk page discussion. So the DRN submission is/was malformed in many respects. Again I don't think there was any malice in these actions but the bottom line is that this dispute does not fit into DRN's forum which is defined as an informal place for minor content disputes. Since there are so many participants involved in this dispute I would suggest that you file a WP:RFC. I understand your frustration so if you need some help or advice in how to formulate the RfC, give me a ping on my user talk page and I'll assist you. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
ReallyFat B. Reading the article's talk page the involved talk pages I'm of the opinion that while a close based on CANVASS is a rather weak argument, I don't think we're going to see any change in position on this debate as a result of a DRN thread. I think it would be better if both sides agreed to conduct a RFC (advertised to appropriate locations such as the associated Wikiprojects (including Wikiproject Science)) that had an outcome of establishing a limited time (1 year) binding consensus regarding the lead sentence to be closed by an uninvolved Administrator in good standing. This will end the debate for the time being and focus attention back to improving the article and Wikipedia as a whole while at the same time disarming this potential drama magnet for a while. Hasteur (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
It is a rather weak argument as every participant was involved in the discussion of the beginning sentence of that article, albeit at different times. An RFC seems agreeable though and it could achieve the same result that we desire. Besides, what choice do we have? Re-opening the DRN will surely lead to another excuse to shut it down, as it seems that it's been agreed here to keep it closed. --86.21.101.169 (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem with filing requests for comment in this will be that the parties we appeal to are mostly proponents of this theory and will not be inclined to change anything. Unless you can call in the correct people, people who will appreciate the facts of the situation, we're going to get a whole storm of users just like BatteryIncluded insulting and defaming our beliefs and not addressing the question. The people who are part of this project support it, so asking them for comments is pointless - they will support the current position. Could we not refile this? We can ask all the users who were part of the discussion (and KeithBob, there were four different instances where this was addressed, which is why some of the listed users may have seemed unfamiliar to you) at any time to contribute to the DRN, achieve a consensus, and state that it should be binding for a year, thereby achieving a much more neutral and fair final decision. What do you think?ReallyFat B.06:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
ReallyFat B. Either you are going to accept the consensus decision (which Wikipedia almost always works on) or you're not going to remain an editor for long. Unless you can call in the correct peopleWOAH THERE! You need to put that thought out of your head right now. That's canvassing and one of the fastest ways to your viewpoint being labeled as disruptive editing and being put in the padded room. Do we ask literature major graduates about theroritical physics? Why shouldn't the members of the science based wikiprojects be invited to participate in the RFC? Hasteur (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Alright then. Point taken. I think we should open another talk thread on the topic, this time fairly representing both sides, and have the discussion closely monitored by an administrator. What do you think? ReallyFat B.19:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that would get shut down even more quickly than the threads at abiogenesis. To the best of my understanding, you're making an argument that the scientific consensus is wrong. You may be right, but en.WP isn't an appropriate place for that discussion. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The scientific consensus is that it's a hypothesis. Unfortunately we can't get that put down on the page when biased mods abuse their power. --86.21.101.169 (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
This, exactly. This is the problem in its entirety. That the members in question ignore scientific consensus and abuse their power so they can promote their own opinions on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReallyFat B. (talk • contribs) 11:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
My name's Chaz, I'm the one who filed the DRN in the first place. My discussion is the result of several attempts to improve an article on Wikipedia, only to have facts, evidence (or lack thereof), and logic ignored. You can see exactly what I did and Reallyfat B. suggesting I open a DRN does not violate any sort of technicality in any way, since I did not even know what a DRN was until a few days ago. Had I known the process I would have made it myself without his suggestion. So to close my discussion based only on the fact that the DRN was premeditated by someone other than myself is unfair to me, as I spent an hour of my time creating it. Had I known that this process existed, I would have wrote up the same exact discussion, regardless of who told me about the DRN process. I put my time and effort into this thing, it needs to be heard out in full. Shandck (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I suggest a refilling but I would also tell editors not to edit the closing comments. That section is not for a discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
A refiling of this case will only result in another close. Forgetting about the canvassing issue.......... I counted 14 editors involved in the one discussion thread. ReallyFatB says there were other editors in other threads. That means a 'proper' DRN filing would include up to 20 participants. It would be absurd and pointless and outside the scope of DRN which is defined as "an informal place to resolve small content disputes." T-Man, Hasteur and myself have all stated that an RfC is the appropriate action in this instance. However, ReallyFatB (RFB) seems to be saying there has already been a consensus on the talk page and an RfC will have the same undesirable result. So it appears RFB is Forum Shopping for a preferred result. Sorry, but that is not how WP works. Bottom line is this dispute will not be heard here at DRN. Please explore your other options at WP:DR and WP:DRR.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC) (DRN Vounteer Coordinator)
This is one of those times I do disagree. I do feel the party should be allowed to re-file, reword and re-think the dispute. Now, I am also not aware of any participation limit. What are too many editors? Many will likely decline and some may not even really be a part of the dispute. But as always I defer to consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
