The talk page listed has minimal discussion, though if you go to Ring's talk page there's a lot of back and forth between Ring and the editor who opened the case. In the latter case though, there's too much interplay between content and conduct.
I'm inclined to close the case and recommend waiting for additional opinions at the article's Talk page (the fine folks at WT:FILM would likely get involved as well, or WP:3O may work for this), but I'd like to hear from others before doing so. Once there's a more clear discussion at the article's Talk page, a new DRN case could be opened perhaps.
Let me know your thoughts on closing the case per the above...or if you want to take the initiative, don't let me stop you. (grin) DonIago (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I closed it and thought well to check here in case a discussion was underway. There is no dispute if the OP admits fully that the content that the other editor replaced their edits with was superior. This is strictly a behavioral issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I think closing was the right call. I've noted that additional opinions have been requested at WT:FILM, and I believe the OP approached another editor about the matter who also suggested options other than DRN. Thanks for the assist! DonIago (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Question About Dispute Resolution, based on Russia
To what noticeboard should a case be taken that involves both a real content dispute and conduct issues? This question is based on the Russia dispute but goes beyond it. The Russia issue involved both a content dispute, over GDP ranking, and conduct issues (false claims of vandalism, blanking). The volunteers who handled the case said that its handling here hang on a thread. Should I have brought it here first anyway? If I had taken it to WP:ANI, some of the editors would have said that it was a content dispute. Eventually cases that involve both content issues and conduct disputes often wind up at the ArbCom, but only after there is a history that nothing else works. Should content disputes complicated by conduct issues be brought here first, knowing that closure due to conduct issues was the outcome, and establishing that it is not only a content dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Good question Robert. This is a situation that comes up here, and in other DR forums, often. When content disputes arise they often generate misbehavior due to editor fatigue and frustrartion. In my experience, if the content dispute is brought to a neutral forum in a timely way, much of the misbehavior can be avoided. The forums I'm suggesting include things such as WP:RfC, WP:DRN or an appropriate noticeboard. However, when that is done its important to present the dispute in terms of content only and put aside any misbehavior issues for the time being. Often this results in the misbehavior subsiding. If consensus is ignored and the disruptive behavior continues then it's often time to go to a conduct forum like WP:ANI and specify which behavioral guideline is being violated and provide diffs. If the disruptive editor is admonished, warned or sanctioned that often clears up the content issue. So in a nutshell: Yes content and conduct often appear together in disputes but you need to decide which one is the most egregious and then file in either a conduct or a content forum being careful to discuss only relevant info as mixing content and conduct will result in a closed case as you've stated. So even though often appear together they are considered separately and solving one will often resolve the other.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
DRN Case Status Template updating
Consensus is to deprecate the inactive/stale dentifier mapping to needsassist. Consensus also exists to add "See comments for reasoning." to failed/resolved. On behalf of the DRN cabal, Hasteur (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
FYI: DRN Clerk bot task 1 (updating the case status summary template) was approved and will be updating the status template if there are updates to be had. Now if we want to, we can start hashing out what status tweaking the bot should do. Hasteur (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Wonderful! Thanks! Looking through recent archives it appears we currently have the following case status labels [shown here in bold] with the corresponding code options (in parentheses):
New discussion.: ("new",)
Discussion in progress.: ("open", "active", "inprogress")
Per the code I'm reading at [1] that is correct. I'm not participating in this discussion as a DRN member (but as the bot operator) so that the division between what the community wants and what the operator wants is not breached, but I would like to guide the discussion to "For each of the listed statuses, what qualifies a case to be in such a status?" The purpose is to define the rules for how the bot determines which cases will need to be tweaked. For example, "If a case has been open for 120 hours (5 days) and is not closed then change the status to Needs assist" per the justification that we should not be taking on highly complex requests and should refer it to a higher form of DR. Hasteur (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm open to the opinions of others but my feeling is that that parameters like 120hrs are arbitrary and create problems rather than expedite process. For that reason I propose that for the time being at least we continue to manually change each case status and avoid auto changes by the bot.
Furthermore, I suggest we:
1) eliminate the "Dispute inactive/stale" category as it is the same thing as "Needs assistance".
2) add "See comments for reasoning" to the "Closed as failed" and "Dispute successfully resolved" labels
I second Keithbob's proposal. However, I still believe that we can use the 'inactive' category as it can be useful for situations when a dispute needs to be put on hold temporarily due to something such as a main party's short term absence. It should display as 'inactive' instead of 'stale' in the header (as 'stale' would be too similar to 'needs assistance'). MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb)01:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I've apparently managed to wholly overlook this entire thread until now. I agree so far as has been proposed, but I'd go further and suggest that all we need are new, open, resolved, failed, and closed and their synonyms. Or to say it backwards, I don't think we need needassist or stale. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
It appears unanimous that the Inactive/Stale category is not needed. I could go either way on the Needs Assistance category.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Hasteur would you please summarize, close and enact whatever you see as the consensus in the above discussion which has been open for more than 30 days. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The death section has been repeatedly vandalized, I have revered the page back to earlier version. Wikipedia does not allow inserting personal opinions based on their self published books although they were referenced in a self published book by his wife. It also violates Wikipedia policy content against living persons (in this case Hudson Samarasinghe), whom Academiava is trying to slander. May be you are allowed to slander people based on his wife's opinion in your home country Sri Lanka but not on a well respected and responsible venue such as Wikipedia. Observing the slanderous language that Academiava is using I am convinced that this is the same guy who was banned from Wikipedia for repeated violations(wipeouting now with a different user name). If you compare his earlier language skills with current language skills, I have no doubt it is the same person --Ramya20 (talk) 11:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Premakeerthi de Alwis assassination is a controversial issue in sri lanka. i want improve this article. but User:Ramya20 is removing valuable issues on this article.I can argue that writer's User:Ramya20 (who try to exclude other other valuable footnotes) reference are incorrect. no one can put other language in correct footage (Sinhala PDF "Murder Conviction-Court Case") on encyclopedia. I invite to administrator involve this matter and include necessary information and footnotes for this articl. please search facts and evidence and put all issues about his assassination.--Academiava (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Death
AAlwis, who was 42, was dragged from his house and murdered on the night of July 31, 1989. The murder has been blamed on the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna[1],but nirmala de Alwis is complaining it was handled by Hudson Samarasinghe.[2]
I’m pretty sure I filed my request wrong, using the wrong page name and putting the wrong summary in the wrong section… I edited it all to try and fix it after the fact. I’m not sure how the DRN filing process works, if it does anything behind the scenes or hard-links the section title anywhere or anything like that, so I hope I didn’t break anything. Guess I’m posting this here just in case I did. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, it's been a while. Just a bit of feedback about the changes to the case status template - in the past, it calculated the differences between times rather than just showing the raw times (i.e. case opened 5 hours ago, last edited 3 hrs ago etc) which I think was the most valuable part of the template, it allowed at a glance an idea on how long a case had been open and if it needed attention. Is it possible this can be re-added? StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes!09:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Babymetal/Archive 2#Disruptive edits by SilentDan297 discussion
I have looked over the noticeboard links and the edit warring page was the only other one I felt would be appropriate however I already have taken a discussion there and all we got was a mere warning, in terms of having actual feedback for the page we got none so after I was told to look at this noticeboard where we would get actual feedback, I feel that this close in discussion is a bit unfair considering no one has replied to my last comment for a week. If someone could either re-open the discussion with an intent to go through with it or at least point me in the right direction that would be great, thank you. SilentDan (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Unforunately, I seem to be very busy over the next few days/week (I am away until Wednesday, and I start a new job in a few days time), so I doubt I have adequate time to help out anytime soon. --Mdann52talk to me!08:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi SilentDan297 I understand your frustration. Often there is no quick fix when it comes to dispute resolution. Contrary to the perception of many editors DRN is not a place to "get actual feedback". Rather it is a place for moderated discussion between the involved parties. Though DRN moderators do sometimes add their personal opinion their main role is to maintain civility, keep participants focused on the issues at hand and to insure WP guidelines and policies are being applied and adhered to. Maybe that is what you meant, but just in case, I thought I'd clarify. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@Keithbob: I'm aware that these disputes are not instant and I'm aware that moderators are not here to simply give in third opinions on the situations, but the situation is that the discography format is not in accordance to WP:DISCOGSTYLE but the opposing editor disagrees and believes that the discography format should remain, there is also an issue with the labels that is yet to be solved, there has been so much arguing and when I asked for a third opinion they directed me here. I want the best for this article and so does the opposing editor but we have conflicting edits, hence why I asked for aid here. Apologies if I at any point seemed uncivil. SilentDan (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm very sorry to repeat this again, but according to three other editors (other than me and you; anyone can look at the Babymetal talk page, but their names are Stfg, STATicVapor, DAJF) there is nothing wrong with the Discography section as it is now. (All their corrections to Discography have been implemented.) And I find it very frustrating how you repeat the same things over and over again as if you haven't noticed any of other people's opinions. Can't you see that no one actually cares and everyone went away from all the discussions you caused and you are the only one who stayed? It looks like now you just want to find someone, anyone, who would support you in switching the Year and Title columns. It's really strange. It's already a DEADHORSE, it was has been for almost two weeks now, at least since August 8 when DAJF went away and didn't return. And another editor has corrected the table since, but didn't touch the years: [2]. Apparently, no one sees any problems with the way the tables are formatted now. I don't want to argue with you, I would prefer if you stopped insisting on these minor changes. Frankly saying, I'm afraid for the article. I can vividly imagine how you continue this discussion for years and how all work on the article is paralyzed and the article eventually destroyed. (And no, I'm not happy with how the discussion on the Babymetal talk page ended. The article lost some valuable details. But I still prefer the way it is now to destroying the whole page for the sake of winning an argument with you. And I have other stuff to do. And about the labels in the infobox... At least, I saved the infobox from "Juonbu, BMD Fox"... I stopped arguing and put my efforts into expanding the article. Why can't you?) --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd rather not go through this again, but essentially I believe the article should be in accordance to WP:DISCOGSTYLE, while it's true no one has backed me up you are the only one against it. I will wait for a reply of one of the admins rather than make another huge discussion like what has happened on the Babymetal talk page. I hope that the discussion can be reopened soon. SilentDan (talk) 11:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I see my name was mentioned in the discussion here, but I hadn't commented further on the issue as I saw no urgent need for changes one way or the other. My view is that the manual of style guidelines should normally take precedence over personal preferences, so the recommendations outlined at WP:DISCOGSTYLE should be applied to the Babymetal article also. It would make more sense to keep discussion about improvements to the article at the article's talk page, where more people are likely to see it. --DAJF (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm a regular volunteer here at DRN. I don't particularly want to become involved in this, but I do feel that I need to clear up one possible misconception. Wikipedia policy very plainly says that style guides adopted in the various Wikiprojects such as WikiProject Discographies are not binding in any way. See CONLIMITED, part of the Consensus policy:
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. (See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages.)
The WikiProject Council/Guide (which is a guideline, not just a project itself) goes on to make clear that style guides adopted by Wikiprojects are only advice pages, not rules in any sense, and then concludes:
An advice page written by several members of a project is no more binding on editors than an advice page written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional {{essay}}.
It's not clear that DISCOGSTYLE even reaches the level of an advice page in light of the banner at the top of the page which says that the discussion to adopt it by the Wikiproject went dormant without it being adopted by the project. Thus, saying that you think it should be followed is simply your personal opinion without any weight added by adoption of that guide by the community. That's fine, of course, and it's a handy way of expressing one's opinion, but no one should take it as being binding. No one is asserting that here, of course, but I wanted to make sure that no one had a false impression. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
@TransporterMan: You are actually supporting me against SilentDan297. :) It's SilentDan297 who
wants the infobox to look according to what the "Parameters" and "Examples" sections at Template:Infobox musical artist suggest
@TransporterMan: OK, thanks for the clarification. I was under the impression that the style guidelines carried more weight, but I am happy to have been corrected. In that case, there does appear to be no pressing need to make any drastic changes to the discography details in the Babymetal article under discussion here, if the only issue being debated is whether the release year should be in the first column of the table or come after the release title. --DAJF (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I did notice that is dormant at this moment in time and I would like to make it active though I have no idea how to do so, so if we can all agree that we don't want it in the format it gives us then why have that article exist in the first place? What's the point in that pages existence? Or should it be followed only if the discography is on its own article? I'm now confused because all I've done in terms of discographies is format them by following this guide, so does that mean I can make any new discography to any format I desire? I think there should be a specific style. Anyway now that there are others opposing my means of format I will leave the discography alone, although it is not by these standards that the style page has told me to do so. The only thing that's now a concern to me is the Labels in the infobox, all that is discussed on the talk page and the sources provided seem questionable to me. So can someone clear it up to me if these style pages are to be acknowledged in anyway or if I should go by my own initiative? SilentDan (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
If you believe that there should be a specific style for discographies, then your time would be best spent attempting to have DISCOGSTYLE made an editing guideline (and, probably, added to the manual of style, rather than being stranded at a Wikiproject) via the process set forth in PROPOSAL rather than arguing about it at any particular article. Until then, the style of discography at particular articles is a matter which is subject to being determined by consensus on an article-by-article basis. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 12:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Question for the old timers.....or well read newbies!
Something came up on my watch list tonight and it made me stop and think about requests that we cannot accept.
Administrative actions are beyond our purview....right? It isn't a content dispute if an admin has already deleted the content.....right?
Next question...what is defined as "content" in a dispute? Is it anything on any page within Wikipedia? Or are the user sup pages a matter of the user and any admin that feels such content crosses the line when they delete it?
If an editor wants to file a DR over such a deletion...do we take it or refer it to AN, which I believe is best equipped to handle disputes about admin actions? What if an editor tries to edit a user sub page and is reverted by the user and an edit war breaks out and lands on our desk? Do we take it or simply tell the requesting editor that user sub pages are the purview of the editor until they are placed into the article space?
Yes. Admin actions are subject to WP:ADMINACT, and if they are unhappy with some admin action (eg. deletion), WP:DRV already exists for that. So yes, if it is reguarding an admin action, best to refer it to WP:AN, or another venue. --Mdann52talk to me!06:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Inactive IRC channel
The IRC channel for DRN, #wikipedia-en-drn, has been left inactive (for a long time I think). For this reason, I'd suggest removing the link from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Header or replace it with a link to #wikipedia-en-help (It's an editing help channel, but interested helpers may offer some suggestions). Thanks for your attention. Zhaofeng Li [talk...contribs...] 06:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Dispute involves both content and user conduct--best avenue?
Hi. I'm involved in a multi-editor dispute (five longstanding, three current) that's been going on for months. Most of the parties involved have been within the bell curve of reasonable, but one guy is a real problem: He's written some biased noticeboard filings and refused to change them, undermined attempts to resolve the dispute, and demanded to see precedents, sources and policies only to ignore or denigrate them once they were found to be contrary to his position. None of that's specifically against the rules, though. He also has his complaints about me. While this is primarily a content dispute, I feel that other editors and I could have come to a mutually acceptable solution by now if not for his efforts (or at least proceeded toward one in a less dramatic manner). Should I seek resolution here or elsewhere? Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
If you have a well defined content issue you may file a case here for a moderated discussion that often disallows the shenanigans that occur on article talk pages. However, be aware that we do not address conduct issues here and when you file your case here at DRN please discuss the content issues only and do not personalize the issue or discuss matters of conduct. Thanks,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Understood. We also have a very well-defined content issue. I'll keep looking for a place to find out how to deal with this guy. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
If you want to address the conduct issue(s) you may try WP:ANI but if you bring up content issues you will be rejected there. If you go to ANI be sure to cite specific behavioral guidelines that the editor in question has violated and provide diffs of clear cut violations. Although content and conduct issues may emit from the same editor and often overlap, they are handled separately on WP. For further options see WP:DR or WP:DRR. Let me know if I can be of further service.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Dispute about sources and WP:NOTSTATS!
Hi I've got into a little dispute with a fellow unregistered editor 86.172.40.147 about valid sources. Last week I saw on the Through the Keyhole page, that this unregistered user in his old IP address had used British Comedy Guide as the source for the episodes on the current series. I have been editing off and on for the past few years and have dealt with a lot of british editors who are not fond of this source and prefer Radio Times and items from the ITV or BBC press offices for better confirmation. So I tried to help the page, but this unregistered user rejected them saying that both are unreliable and kept the BCG sources. I spoke to user AldezD who suggested I write my problem on the program's talk page but have not since heard any response. 86.172.40.147, himself just erased my message to him and ignored me.
However, only a couple of hours after writing my problem, 86.172.40.147 went on a deletion spree that night and went onto a lot of British programme pages and deleted episode guides, reverted sources and all that citing WP:NOTSTATS and WP:OVERKILL. I have known of WP:NOTSTATS for a while now, from AldezD when discussing game show episode listings on Wikipedia but 86 also deleted guides from travel shows, panel shows and documentary programmes. He has continued to do mass edits for the past two nights and doesn't seem in any way to consider stopping and listen to reason. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.172.40.147) He also has been warned on his talk page about disruptive edits and misunderstanding of WP:OVERKILL.
I have been editing here for almost 8 years and always had a fine relationship with most of the UK editors and they have always accepted my sources. however, this unregistered user 86.172.40.147 is starting to make me rethink my enthusiasm for editing on Wikipedia, as I am not sure as to what i can or cannot do while editing. I may diminish my editing drastically. Can anyone offer me any advice about this user or perhaps talk to him and reason with him. Any help wold be appreciated. Thanks in advance173.179.185.186 (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)samusek2
The disruptive IP has been blocked (see here). If, after the block, there are further problems, consult with the Admin who administered the initial block. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
He's Baaaaaack!
Hi! My health has improved to the point where I am now once again taking DRN cases. I haven't been on Wikipedia at all. Is there anything new that I should be aware of? New procedures? Rule changes?
This case [3] needs a DRN volunteer moderator. All parties have given a summary and its been waiting several days for a volunteer to open the case.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Just so it doesn't seem as if I've completely vanished, I thought I'd let you know that I'll be back in time to coordinate December. I should be back to regular editing by next week and can handle some cases this month, too. Sorry for the prolonged absence; I'd planned to be back last month but then things got very busy again in real life. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 23:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I can't take that. Recuse for interactions with one of the participants. Good luck to whoever takes this on...."you're gonna need a bigger boat"(Jaws (film 1975) Steven Spielberg).--Mark Miller (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I might be willing to take a look at this one, but I'd like to see what Darkness Shines says in their statement first. DonIago (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I've added two new participants and notified three participants, including Darkness Shines who had not been notified, to the War of the Pacific case. I am not taking the case, just doing some administrative duties there.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Volunteer needed to complete case I've withdrawn from
I've withdrawn from this case as some participants have expressed dissatisfaction with the way I was moderating the discussion. Could another volunteer please take over? Thank you. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Traxon tech case
I am not a volunteer, though I have seen a bit of this noticeboard in the past couple of weeks. It seems to me that in this case, there is very little discussion on the talk page prior to coming to DRN. According to one participant, only 2 hours of discussion, which seems correct to me, after seeing the talk page. Kingsindian (talk) 08:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Good catch. The case has been closed as it did not meet the DRN prerequisite for significant prior discussion. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Have not been enthusiastic enough here so...
I am taking a break from my volunteer work here. I haven't done much lately so it really won't effect the board. But I am seriously disappointed with Wikipedia Administration right now and I really feel what I have been attempting to do here was help take some burden off them. Right now....I don't think I really care what burden they may have right now. Sorry. This is not all admin. Some are great and truly dedicated editors and I want to acknowledge that. But right now I feel like I am bailing out water with a cup while many or most of them are widening the hole.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi User: Mark Miller, I'm sorry to hear of your discouragement. We have all felt that from time to time. I'm not sure what you mean by WP Administration or if you care to explain further or not. I don't know if you mean Wikimedia or ArbCom or the WP Admins or the administration of this noticeboard. In either case, I will say that your participation here has been greatly appreciated by me and I'm sure lots of others too. And by the way I am not a WP Admin, I'm just an editor like you. The reason I am here at DRN is because I want to reduce the pockets of aggression and anger on WP that drive editors off the project. Also, when people come to DRN, and ask for help reducing drama and resolving disagreements, I feel an obligation to assist them before they end up at ANI or ArbCom and people get blocked or topic banned etc. However........ I respect your feelings and need to pull way. I hope you'll come back in future. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Eventually I would like to return and be of help. But I can't allow the bias I feel right now to interfere in the board. I am not upset with Arb Com or the administration of this Noticeboard. I should have been more clear. Sorry. As I said, it isn't all admin, but the admin core in general has really just not done the right things lately and seem to be creating more disputes in the wake of the movements through Wikipedia. It has seriously begun to effect the way I see the entire project. I have a cloud in front of me and why should that effect the good that is being done? Hope to be back when I can!--Mark Miller (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Please note that the RSN discussion was started during an ongoing DRN case by one of the parties in that case. Do we want to set a precedent that says that anybody can shut down a DRN case by WP:FORUMSHOPING if they don't like the way things are going for them? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't really see the harm in saying "Deferred pending outcome at RSN"...to me that's not shutting anything down, it's waiting for additional information that may be pertinent. But I could be persuaded otherwise, possibly. DonIago (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Y I placed the case on hold. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 19:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Question: The RSN thread has been archived because it received no replies within a certain amount of days (i.e. sat stale). What shall we do with the DRN request? MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb)02:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: I haven't followed this case in detail but it is to my understanding that you were involved with the article prior to the case filing. Are you now recused from the case? MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb)21:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I made a rather embarrassing mistake and completely forgot that I had made a single edit to the page two years ago, and to make things worse the edit touched on the matter under dispute. At least I came to the same conclusion both times -- I concluded that the article calling a fringe theory that is closely associated with a particular individual "fraud" and "loser technology" violated BLP then and I made the same conclusion when I looked at it again. A DRN volunteer needs to be uninvolved, so as soon as my previous interaction was pointed out to me I recused myself. I have also started using the tool at https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py before I take any case to make sure that there are not any previous interactions with any of the participants that that I forgot about. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Can I assert that Guy did nothing wrong here? The standard is, per our header, "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." (Emphasis added.) If Guy did not recall his prior interaction — an assertion with which I have absolute confidence, knowing Guy — then he certainly could not be biased. Once it was raised he immediately withdrew, which is the second part of our standard: "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..." I wouldn't even consider this to be an mistake, much less an embarrassing mistake. Hell, he could have taken this case even he had remembered the prior edit if he didn't feel that it would have biased his response. (Though let me hasten to note that in that case the highest road, and the one I would recommend, would have been not to do so, and the next-lowest-road — but still plenty high enough — would have been to disclose it and ask if anyone had any objections.) No harm, no foul. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Not yet but thanks. OK...I actually thought we had a number of people that were taking those volunteer slots now and was just curious if it was time to begin a more formal selection, but I think you may have a better understanding of the situation. Thanks!--Mark Miller (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
War of the Pacific
Hello, I reinserted (from Archive 99) the section "War of the Pacific" that had been archived without closing/finish. Please don't close until I post 2 {{Talkback}} to the involved users. I think that archived passage should be deleted from Archive 99. --Keysanger (talk)16:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I have removed it from the archive and have adjusted the "Do Not Archive Until" date to push automatic archiving out for another week to October 13, but realize that DRN generally believes that disputes which cannot be resolved and closed within two weeks generally ought to be terminated unless they move steadily forward. Our archiving bot enforces that by automatically archiving any dispute which is more than two weeks old if there is no edit within a 24-hour period. If it is archived again after October 13 then the volunteer handling the case, Keithbob, must endorse returning it to active status again. (He also has the option of either (a) reversing my actions and returning it to auto-closed status at this moment if he feels that it should not be revived at this point or (b) moving the DNAU date even further out.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
Could dispute resolution be more proactive or roam the encyclopedia to help more?
Just a thought....but what I think we really need is to start addressing conflict between editors more and not just content. Seriously.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I personally would resign from DRN if that happened. I don't think that dealing with user behavior is compatible with our choice of purposely giving DRN volunteers zero authority. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think its a bad concept. The question is how would it be implemented and regulated and interface with Admins and other systems of DR. Lastly, would the community accept it. It's a big discussion and if you are serious about I'd recommend reading the Sheriff proposal and then starting you own proposal on a dedicated page. I think its too big a topic for this talk page. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Referring to Mediation
I'm noticing that cases with more than 3-4 participants take a very long time to moderate and often are not resolved. I'd therefore like to suggest that we start recommending WP:MEDIATION for these cases and not allowing them here at DRN. Mediation is under utilzed and DRN often gets backlogged. We should keep in mind that DRN is described as "an informal place to resolve small content disputes". It's not meant to take the place of Mediation. I'm not proposing a hard line rule, just a general sentiment that would be applied on a case by case basis. What do others think?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree that 5 participants seems to be a tipping number. Cases with that many participants can go either way, 6 or more are almost always too complex and fail to resolve, especially within the 2 week initial do-not-archive period and more often than not, at all. On the other hand, remember that MedCom's participation standards are more rigid than they are here; if less than a majority of the listed participants fail to agree to mediation the case is going to be refused almost every time. Here at DRN we can be a little more flexible and analytical about whether listed parties are essential or not. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
This page is for discussing operational issues with the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, not for other matters. The proper place for your remark is at Talk:Dejan. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
It appears that our maintenance bot is no longer notifying parties that a case has been filed here. (Right, Hasteur?) But, frankly, we shouldn't have to worry about that. Both the instructions at the top of the page and the listing form (the one that you get after you click the "Request dispute resolution" button) clearly say that it's the requesting editor's responsibilty to make sure the parties are notified. I've stared adding the following note to listings (at least to those which aren't going to be immediately closed for insufficient discussion, being a conduct complaint, not really being a dispute but a request for editing assistance, etc.):
Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Just a reminder: It is the requesting party's obligation to make certain that all parties who have taken part in the talk page discussion are listed as parties, above, and are immediately notified of this filing. The notice must be placed on each party's user talk page and must include a link to this section. The easiest way to do that is add {{subst:drn-notice|Section name} - ~~~~ on their user talk page. If the other parties have not been notified within a few days — usually 3-5 — after this case has been filed it will be closed as abandoned. Regards, ~~~~
We need to expect folks to read and follow the instructions if they really feel they need help. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)PS: Forgot to say: I substitute the actual section name for "Section name" after the subst:drn-notice in the form lest, FSM help us, we get notices on user talk pages directing them to "Section name.". — TM 16:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree with T-Man. Let the filing party do it. Before even when the auto notification system was "working" it often missed participants and I was constantly checking and other DRN volunteers were checking too, sometimes duplicating efforts. That wasn't a good system. So let's try this and see how it goes.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Pin Drop
Wow, I've been helping out at DRN for almost a year and I've never seen the board empty. You can here a pin drop. Shhh... don't wake up the elephants!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Electronic cigarette needs volunteer
The Electronic cigarette case either needs or is very close to needing a volunteer. I can't take it due to conflict of interest. Anyone? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
We've redecorated and hung new curtains, but it's still the same old place at heart. We're keeping a light in the window for you. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
As I remember we decided to remove the auto-notification feature as it was unreliable. However, are not notified when they complete the DRN case form that they are responsible to notify all the participants. I think it should be added to the Summary page? Thoughts?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Theodore! was scheduled to take the December-January coordinator spot, but has not edited Wikipedia since September 10. Since the coordinator page suggests that you ought to be active here for at least the month prior to your coord stint, I have boldly moved Theodore! into the vacant February-March slot and have taken the December-January slot myself. I've told him what I've done at his user talk page and also told him that if he objects, I'll gladly hand it back over to him. I'll make that same offer to anyone else: If you either think that what I've done is improper or want the Dec-Jan slot yourself, then feel free to revert all or part of this edit without any fear of objection or reversion from me. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Cannot seem to figure out how to request dispute resolution despite having read instructions. Much of my knowledge comes from an oral tradition handed down to me in addition to 30 years of research and first hand experience or individuals who are in a position to know particularly their own language so edits may not appear in a book or document that can be cited unless there is incontrovertible information to the contrary please do not remove edits or edit information to conform to whatever personal views a moderator happens to hold such actions discourage others from contributing and discredits the effort as a whole as being biased and illinformedLisam7 (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
If you want help requesting dispute resolution on a specific topic, you will need to provide more details. As regard to the general point regarding the need to provide sources rather than basing content on personal knowledge, there is a note at the top of every editing page that reads "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". From what you are saying, you appear to be objecting to being held to the same standard as any other contributor, and if that is the case, you are unlikely to find help via dispute resolution. The requirement that content be verifiable is fundamental to the way Wikipedia works, and if you are unable to work within this restriction, you may have to publish your work elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Lisam7: To request dispute resolution through this noticeboard click here and follow the instructions on that page. I cannot, however, recommend that you do so because I've looked at your edit history and I see no extensive talk page discussion of any dispute. Such discussion is a prerequisite to seeking any form of moderated content dispute resolution at English Wikipedia. If your concern is regarding unsourced edits, under Wikipedia's Verifiability policy all information which is challenged or likely to be challenged (and in everyday practice here, that's just about everything) must be cited to a reliable sourceas defined by Wikipedia (click on that link to get that definition). Personal knowledge and oral tradition are never sufficient. For the reasons for that, see this essay. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
The stated rationale, for closing dispute, is false
The dispute on the content in Energy returned on energy invested is not over. As I(the filing editor of the dispute), did indeed provide all the information required of me. However, User:Keithbob decided to close the dispute with the rationale that, I did not "post the disputed sentence". Which is false, as:
(A). the dispute is not over a sentence and therefore,
(B). I, as the record shows, did indeed include a link to the disputed paragraph of content prior to Keithbob stating I failed to provide the "disputed sentence". The content that has repeatedly been removed by those with a clear WP:COI, a conflict of interest, which I exposed here in the dispute resolution board and on the talk page of the article. Here Talk:Energy returned on energy invested. So this is not just a mere edit dispute but has implications for editing across the entire project.
The primary reason for the close was that no volunteer had "taken" the case in 16 days. That, unfortunately, sometimes happens: we're all volunteers here at Wikipedia and no one is obliged to do more than they care to do. There's no point in reopening, so I must decline your request. Since it is clear that you feel that you need additional dispute resolution, I'd suggest that you consider either formal mediation or a request for comments. If it's not been already tried, a RFC might be the better choice in your circumstances and mediation would still be potentially available if the RFC ends in no consensus. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
Hi there, I'm also uninvolved, and have to agree that the back and forth sniping between the IP editor and the other respondant was sufficent that no volunter will take on the relaxed mediation role. If you want to continue this, you must follow the rules of DRN (Neutrally state the case, Present your arguments, let the opposition present their arguments, and be brief prior to a volunteer taking it on) and start again since the thread you propose to re-open is so laden with faults that even I am loath to interceed on. Hasteur (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, I'll try formal mediation, as my experience with RFC has been trying due to its glacial pace, and seen as there is strong evidence for a WP:COI, I think MEDCOM might therefore be best. I extend my thanks to TransporterMan for the informative reply! Having just got back from the formal mediation page, I have failed 3 times at adding the article needing mediation to the scheme. You're given the example of "swimming" but when I enter "Energy return on energy invested" into the filing space for mediation, I get a return that "no page by that name exists". Very infuriating, the process is not at all intuitive? Any pointers on filing it correctly would be most appreciated! Hasteur I will keep that in mind, and try to prevent myself from being set-up again.
Keithbob, A partial apology is needed from me to you, as I combined your comments as, the closing editor on 21:28, 1 December 2014, with the comments of the volunteer who issued the closing reply in the dispute, which is at the very end of the dispute, made by User:FelixRosch on 15:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC). Hasteur may say I have learned nothing from their reply from what I'm about to write but, really "for the record".
Keithbob's claim that "not even the filing party has participated in several days" is pretty misleading as I was the very last person to add anything to the dispute before it was swiftly closed with little notice in the space of hours, and was thus sitting patiently checking in daily, eagerly awaiting a reply from someone. So if I were to have continued to "participate", as it seems you are suggesting I should have done, I would have been literally talking to myself. Your closing comment however really did make me think I was talking to a wall or something. So as a tip to you and FelixRosch, for dispute resolutions in the future, you could be mindful of your "not evens" and misleading statements that filing editors did not "post the disputed sentence"(written by FelixRosch). As they come across as fairly antagonistic. I will assume good faith and that neither of you meant to come across that way, but a simple - 'hey we need to close this dispute as no volunteer has picked it up, but you can try RFC & MEDCOM' - would have sufficed. Keep up the mediation practice, and best wishes all.
The case ; Talk:Kings of Judah#Synchronism material on the last kings of Judah vs. kings of Babylon has been ongoing since December 8 when a drop off comment from a new editor somehow began a discussion and the template now shows open discussion, although no volunteer took the case or opened it. Right now a new editor is attempting to mediate this case and has made the mistake of not noticing that it should not have been open as there is a clear consensus of editors on the talk page that the chart should be excluded. I don't even think the new editor realizes that a volunteer is required. They are continuing a good faith attempt to refine the content of the chart that has already been excluded by consensus. I am closing the case and referring the editors back to the talk page for further discussion but that refinements to the chart itself should probably be best kept on the talk page of the chart.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
On the tenth of this month Kiethbob referred to Felix as a DRN volunteer. But his name is not on the list and it seems it was Keithbob's comment that may have triggered the bot to open when no volunteer is really mediating the case. Since Keithbob has referred to the editor as a DRN volunteer, the participants had no way to know that Felix was not an assigned DRN mediator on the case officially but simply an editor who dropped off a few comments. But when identified as a volunteer it..er...ordainment by proclamation that editor to be mediating that case. I mean...what does it really take to be a volunteer here but a willingness to volunteer? If Keithbob calls Felix a volunteer and Felix does not question or correct Keithbob, we should just ask Felix if he wishes to be a formal volunteer so the bot will recognize him and to review the process and procedures etc. I will continue to interact with Felix as a volunteer as there is no formal reason why I should not. For that reason my closing will continue to be a call for closing and I will not close it myself, but encourage Felix to find resolution in the case and close it themselves as the mediator when they decide the case has been played out.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Mark and thanks for your vigilance and help with this. User:FelixRosch has been helping out here at DRN for some weeks. It's not a requirement for DRN volunteers to formally list themselves on the DRN volunteer list but I will encourage Felix to do so. Some days ago I changed the case status to Open as Felix was actively leading a discussion. I told him/her that if they were not going to formally lead the discussion, as a DRN volunteer, to revert my edit or let me know so I could revert it. Since he/she did neither I take it that Felix is officially moderating that case. Thank you for supporting and encouraging Felix to participate and helping him/her to refine his moderation skills and learn the ropes here at DRN. We need more active volunteers here at DRN and I'm hoping Felix will stick around. Peace and happy holidays to all! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Volunteers needed for two cases
Volunteers are needed to take two cases, Caliphate and Mexicans of European descent, both of which have replies from all listed parties. Please consider taking these cases. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
Qualifications question
Are there no minimum qualifications for being listed (and then solicited from the list) at WP:DRVOLUNTEERS? I haven't seen any specified, but perhaps this is dealt with on a case-by-case basis when someone unqualified volunteers? For context, I came to this page via this message left by TransporterMan for Xan81. I'm sure this was random or even semi-automated, but nearly all of Xan81's very few total edits have been contentious and often clear violations of policy (user page is filled with warnings and a block). Assuming good faith, that's not to say Xan81 is not interested in building a better encyclopedia, but it does seem like dispute resolution requires not only more experience editing Wikipedia, but knowledge of and respect for its policies and guidelines. So, again, this likely would have been figured out by those involved should he/she accepted the invitation to volunteer, but given the role DR plays in the editorial process and in the community it seems important to ensure anyone who steps forward has minimum competencies. I.e. if I were a newbie engaged in a dispute, seeing someone with this sort of record be recruited and assigned (so to speak) to my case would not instill much confidence in the system. --— Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The closest we come to qualifications is at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#How to start under "Review Wikipedia policies and guidelines". None of the dispute resolution processes at Wikipedia, 3O, DRN, MEDCOM (formal mediation), or RFC has a qualification process for participation except for MEDCOM where one must be elected to membership to serve as a mediator and nominees are virtually always rejected if they are inexperienced, incompetent, or controversial. Here at DRN the coordinator and experienced volunteers generally monitor the work of newcomer volunteers and either lend a hand or suggest that they might want to get additional experience before continuing if they prove themselves to be clueless but, as you say, it's dealt with on a case by case basis. Parties to a case here are free to object to a volunteer (see the second bullet point in the right column of the header on the main page) if they feel that the volunteer is biased or incompetent and in that case the volunteer must either withdraw or appeal the objection to the DRN talk page for consideration by the volunteer community; withdrawal is usually what happens. Like many membership lists at wikiprojects across the wiki there are, alas, many people who put their name on our volunteer list who never take a case. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
A bit of background: When the idea of DRN was first discussed, it was in the context of failed attempts at dispute resolution such as WP:WQA, combined with a (quite reasonable, in my opinion) fear by many administrators that DRN might become a place where non-admins take on more power than they should. After much discussion, we pretty much settled on a few basic ground rules, such as anyone can be a DRN volunteer, DRN volunteers have no special powers or authority, and everyone is completely free to not participate. Over time we clarified things a bit, making it clear that any participant can call for a new volunteer (giving the volunteer the choice to withdraw -- which is what usually happens -- or bring it up on the DRN talk page in case someone tries to abuse the system). We also set up a few rules like not opening the discussion until everyone had a chance to make a statement, the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page, and discussing only article content, not user conduct. Of course all the rules are open to be discussed and changed. So far this has been working out fairly well. If we ever end up with a DRN volunteer who becomes a problem we will have to figure out what to do, but so far everyone has been quite reasonable. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanations. This makes sense to me. I suppose it's uncommon for someone inexperienced to sign up and even less common for those people to actually take on the case. --— Rhododendritestalk \\ 19:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Personal attacks?
What are the guidelines for volunteer moderators if one of the participants in a case engages in personal attacks on another participant? I am willing to take a case, but I would like to know what to do about personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
My recommendation would be to give them one or two warnings to stop engaging in personal attacks (perhaps mentioning WP:NPA along the way). If they won't desist after that, I believe it's generally considered appropriate to close the case, but I'll defer to other opinions on that. DonIago (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Different volunteers do it different ways. This is my preference:
First, tell them to stop and that further PA's or comments upon another editor's motives, biases, editing practices, habits, COI, POV, or anything else about them personally, are not acceptable here and will not be allowed or discussed, but frame the admonition so it's not pointed at any one editor.
Second, if the PA's or other behavioral comments continue after that you have to make a decision: if they're just in passing or minor it's often best to just ignore them, especially if they're just coming from one side, but if they're harsh or back-and-forth and threaten to take over the discussion, then admonish individual editors and say that if they continue that you're either going to close the case or begin to collapse or remove the behavioral comments under the authority you have as a mediator under the control of mediation section of the Mediation Policy (which expressly includes most proceedings at DRN).
Third, start collapsing (preferred over redaction as being less controversial, but that's your call).
Fourth, if it still continues after that, or if they fight you over the collapsing/redaction, then close the case, usually saying something about the parties needing to work out the behavioral issues at ANI before coming back to dispute resolution.
But always remember your obligations under the second bullet point under "Volunteers should remember" at the top of the main page. If a disputant objects to your continued participation, which sometimes happens during one of these behavioral conflicts, you have to either withdraw or take it to the DRN talk page. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The status has been changed to open/in progress. Thanks for taking the case Robert. I'd agree with Tman's advice above (and Donlago too). I have my own nuances but its basically what Tman said. I find that a few warnings (gentle then stronger) plus hatting inappropriate comments works 95% of the time.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Coordinator position will be vacant as of February 1, 2015
The coordinator position for February, 2015-March, 2015, is vacant. Would someone who has been recently active as a volunteer here please step up to take the position? If you care to do so, simply fill in your signature here. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC) (current coordinator)
I would appreciate a more experienced moderator taking a quick look at the Mexicans of European Origin dispute and my handling of it. It isn't clear to me what in particular the two parties want changed in the actual text of the article, because they seem to want to talk about philosophy, which does make a difference, but the real question is what the article should say. I know that my job is to facilitate having mutually satisfactory wording. Since they don't get to the wording level, should I try to propose a compromise wording, or is that more than the moderator should do? Should I again ask them each to submit draft language? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to have time to actually dig through it right now, but it's always acceptable to require them to provide drafts (or, if they've been EW'ing over it, diffs) and to decline to move forward until that's done. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi User:Robert McClenon, I scanned the discussion and you are doing an excellent job. One pointer I would give is I always require the participants to define and agree on what is being disputed right at the beginning of the discussion and I don't proceed until that is done. If they disregard my request for a clear, succinct description then I put them on notice that I'm going to close the DRN if they don't comply in 24-48 hours. What you don't want at DRN is a replay of the talk page where the two editor go round and round without any structure. So in answer to your question, yes you should require them to be succinct, to be specific and to stay on topic. Further, yes it is OK to propose a compromised wording. Ping me on my talk page if you need or want any further input. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Proposing an RFC
There appear to be two areas of disagreement. One of them is the inclusion of an adjective in the lede. The two parties do not agree as to whether it should be there. Moderated dispute resolution cannot begin when any other dispute resolution, including Requests for Comment are in progress. My question is: Can one of the conclusions of moderated dispute resolution be that a content issue should be resolved by a Request for Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
If the discussion of a particular disputed article gets long, can the moderator archive the earlier rounds, or are there procedural reasons why it needs to stay open on the noticeboard?
The archiving is done by bot and trying to do an early, partial archive would likely screw up a lot of stuff. So I'd say no. However, You could 'hat' or 'collapse' any sections you want to using {{collapsetop}} and {{collapsebottom}} -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay. I will hat the older discussions. Hatting is usually used for off-topic stuff, but it is also applicable to stuff that is still on-topic but historical. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. In this case I do want to hat the older discussions rather than collapse them, because anything that can be added to them can be added to later rounds. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm a party to the Boko Haram one (a slam dunk I think) and edit the Caliphate page already. So going to pass for the moment.Legacypac (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I can take Caliphate or Boko Haram. I would prefer Caliphate as being one of the more contentious cases that I like to work on, but I was under the impression that there is productive discussion on the article talk page and it was too early for a DRN case. Did I miss something? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Let me take a look at Friedrich Goldmann. 3O has already failed to bring consensus, so this may be beyond my mediating abilities but let me take a bit and try and digest the issues (they are about influences on an artist and what/how/where they should be included/not). I'll answer here soon, I've done a lot of RfC's and ghosting these DRs but haven't yet led one. EBY (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
My bad. Mounir Majidi isn't ready for a volunteer as the responding party has not yet made an opening statement. Thanks to everyone who is taking cases! Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Am I correct in assuming that a volunteer who is actively working a dispute can reasonably ignore the notice that there is a backlog, because it isn't expected that a volunteer will handle more than one dispute at a time? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
No one is required to do more than they care to do, but a volunteer can certainly handle more than one case at a time if they care to do so. It's entirely up to the volunteer to do anything from zero to infinity (or beyond, if you're Buzz Lightyear). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, TransporterMan, I'm taking Friedrich Goldmann. I may give a shout if I need oversight, especially since this looks like a pretty entrenched skirmish. EBY (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Two editors originally requested dispute resolution on Battle of the Somme. Now one of them has said that a third editor should be involved. That seems like it should be done, but what is the procedure for adding a party to a discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Just add them to the participant list, provide a section for their opening statement, and notify them. No particular procedure or protocol. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Resolved
