Hello everyone, I'm just beginning to get involved in all this. I think perhaps I will just observe cases for a while so I can learn how everything works. I have also been looking at old cases. One question I have, though, is can we not open a case if we don't have a statement from every involved party? I just thought I'd introduce myself and I look forward to getting more involved around here. --JQTriple7 (talk) 05:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
It's a matter of practicality. We're not here as a court or tribunal, we're here to help people work their way to consensus. Unless everyone is present and willing to participate — at least the primary parties to the dispute — any effort here is futile as there's no one to talk to one another or parties are missing who could still continue the dispute at the article, obviating whatever might be accomplished here. There are exceptions, such as when the filing party is fighting against an established recent consensus (in which case there is no dispute) or when the filing party is so clearly and unmistakably wrong under Wikipedia policy and guidelines (and has stated no plausible grounds for a possible local exception to policy) that there's no question about the proper outcome. In those cases, the case can still be closed but the filing party can be told that they're clearly in the wrong, but there needs to be absolutely no possible doubt in those cases before doing that. Best regards and thanks for volunteering, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
That's weird. When I click it, I get a form, allowing me to submit a request. Try perhaps using a different browser? If not maybe get another party to file the request, maybe? JQTriple7 (talk) 09:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Hold up, I take it back. After I logged in, it stopped working even on IE, and it works even on Chrome if I log out. This only works for IP users? (Bollyjeff) 168.215.220.66 (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
No? That's weird. I'm logged in and using chrome and it works fine for me. It also works fine for me, logged in, on Safari on iPad, and IE, logged in, on PC... That's really odd. --JQTriple7 (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Bollyjeff, what computer OS are you using; and which internet browser and edition? Same for you JQ777 for the various systems (maybe dot-point list them?). This should help the tech geeks if they look at the problem. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Everything works fine for me on multiple devices and browsers. They include - Windows 10 PC, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge. iPad Air - iOS 8.2, Safari, Google Chrome. --JQTriple7 (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Might just be a special case of a tech glitch on the backend so deep and dark that we won't see it again then JQ777. Ah well, let the techies have fun seeing if there is a problem and might just wait to see if Bollyjeff has up-to-date software as that can be a problem on occasion. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't work on two separate PC in different locations (home and work) running Windows 7 Professional - Service pack 1. The home PC has Chrome Version 46.0.2490.86 installed. What else can I tell you? BollyJeff|talk02:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Not sure what else the techies would want to know, but it helps to give them at least the basics. Thanks for doing this. BTW, if you still want to file a case, I am happy to proxy for you if you still can't reach the auto-form Bollyjeff. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Try giving this a check first. Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/request#Protected_edit_request_on_17_November_2015 which provides a possible fix for your problem. If this doesn't fix the problem of an empty page appearing, re-try the "request" button and check the links there. If that still hasn't fixed the problem, I will send screenshots of the form to you; you fill out the text areas and send me a note on my talk page or here and we post up a DRN case for you (after checking that everything has been filled out from the form properly). Any problems, leave me a note on my talkpage or here and we will get back to you ASAP. Let us know if the problem is fixed Bollyjeff. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I went to Preferences-Gadgets and checked the correct box as described, and now I do see the form. Someone should add this information to the article. Better perhaps on the main page here rather than the request page which is coming up blank. I didn't think to look on that talk page. Thanks, BollyJeff|talk17:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Off-Wiki Canvassing
It has been called to my attention by an editor that there is off-wiki canvassing on David L. Jones. Do any more experienced volunteers have any suggestions on how to deal with off-wiki canvassing? Since it appears that they will have to use RFCs, or a multi-part RFC, to resolve issues about whether to include sections, one step is to request the RFC closer to discount all !votes from IPs and to be alert to the possibility of new accounts being created as sockpuppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Although there has indeed been off-wiki discussion of the AFDs and of the further debate, readers there were strongly advised (for example: [1]) to not simply pile on with keep !votes; the thread was mostly used to ask for additional sources. Although ゼーロ has made the accusation several times, I think you will find the evidence that any "keep" !votes were actually the result of canvassing is nonexistent; see my analysis here (and please: review it and tell me if you think I'm unjustified in my conclusions). However I completely agree with your suggested remedies. Jeh (talk) 08:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
FEE - Hillside doesn't matter
Would another moderator please take a look at the case regarding the Foundation for Economic Education because quite frankly it is the dumbest case I've ever seen, and I have no idea what to do with it. Some advice would be helpful. Thanks, JQTriple7 (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
This complaint is now completely and utterly beyond ridiculous. How long is this fiasco going to continue? Abel (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The moderator, in closing the case, can advise the other parties that disruptive editing can be reported at WP:ANEW or WP:ANI, and that disruptive editing by unregistered editors is best dealt by requesting semi-protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The IP has stated, in edit summaries, that they are removing "fanboy" language. Removal of promotional language is a valid concern that can be addressed here, but they haven't raised that issue here. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The Talk:Shah Rukh Khan DRN case seems to have gone quiet. Is it okay if I jump in as a volunteer moderator, or would that be confusing given the fact that Winkelvi has begun moderating the case? /wia/tlk19:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Has been quite a few days, I would say state your intention on the case and if there is no response, do so in 24-48 hours. JQTriple7 (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm stepping in on this DRN case as the disputants are starting to throw conduct elbows at each other. I'm taking this case on to try and encourage the disputants to come to a compromise. Hasteur (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Noob volunteer's procedural question
Is it necessary to ensure (by manual addition if necessary) that {{subst:DRN-notice}} appears on the user talk page of the party who opened the request, or just the other parties that they name (or are added later)? I ask because it would seem to be redundant, but I also consider that some bot might need it. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Previously the bot did this action, but when I took over the dropping of DRN-notices was on the "we'd eventually like to get there" but the volunteer corps never got back to it because the baseline activities worked good enough for us at the time. Hasteur (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Article talk pages
Would it possibly be a good idea to have a template to put on disputed article talk pages at the top saying something about there being an active dispute at the DRN? Why/why not? JQTriple7talk08:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I know that I have put up manual notices before, as has UY Scuti in at least one case, but I don't think it would be a generally good thing because DRN doesn't accept article talk page notices (Talk:Example) as a form of notification to editors and I feel that filing editors would ignore that they need to post notices to user talk pages (User talk:Example). This could be mitigated by making it a DRN volunteer template "only", but the practice would have to be limited to a case-accepting volunteer's usage, or require a "V Note" stating that a notice has been placed on the article talk page (Talk:Example). In saying that though, such an idea would be good for some cases where discussion is growing on the talk page so as to direct such "new" parties/editors to the DRN discussion which can be beneficial but poses problems. My two cents, but likely going to have similar responses. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 11:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
List of Military Occupations
I would like the comments of other volunteer editors about this new request, because my own thought is that it should be closed for two reasons. First, it is a dispute about the implementation of a recently closed RFC about Palestine, but there is also an open RFC about East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. East Jerusalem is claimed as the capital of Palestine, so that there is an ongoing discussion that hasn't been closed. Second, it isn't clear that the parties actually want to discuss here. If they do, that is good, but they are also discussing at the RFC. Also, in view of the divisiveness of this issue, if there is to be mediation, it might be more appropriate to take it to requests for formal mediation, because it might take longer than one to two weeks. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Long version: I would close it myself, but I think this one needs a lot more looking into what the h*** happened on that talk page. There seems to be - or have been - several discussions about this particular area of the list; the second RfC mentioned by Robert McClenon (last comment on Dec. 1 by bot-summoned editor), discussion about how to apply the first RfC's consensus and one/two edit requests concerning the "how to apply" area of dispute. This is going to need a lot of paperwork being shuffled into order by the participants or a very patient DRN moderator with a lot of time. Both of these seem inappropriate from gut-feeling of what the DRN is about ... which leads me to:
DRN cases should each have their own page to ease Watchlist monitoring
The current all-on-one page setup for cases renders the Watchlist next to useless for checking for new additions to a case, if there is more than one active case. Giving each case its own page would seem to solve this problem. --Tsavage (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I was very surprised that this was not the case. A separate page per case works fine for e.g. SPI, why not here? Considering the length of some DR cases it would seem to be more than appropriate. Jeh (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Why not keep the current layout where and how it is, but have moderated discussion moved to a separate sub-page? To clarify, the filing form is on the main page, volunteer notes about the filing and the like are on the main page, dispute summaries are on the main page; but the discussion between a case-accepting moderator and the involved parties is moved to a new sub-page by the moderator when accepting the case. This would allow other volunteers to still know what is "active", "new", "failed" and/or "stale" because of the current coding template, but helps mitigate the problem of Watchlist "spamming". This means no code changing needed, just a procedure change. Acceptable solution? Thoughts? Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Drcrazy102: I'm not a fan of people conforming to software, especially "because it's already there" - that said, during discussion of this case, I haven't consulted the filing form information, so the proposed solution of separating the case framing from the discussion would, at least in this instance, work for me. However, for other cases and other editors, being able to consult the filing info may be important. For example, if there are quite a number of parties, I could see wanting to consult the list quite frequently.
If it's possible, duplicating the filing info an a discussion sub-page would appear to solve all problems. I'm not sure if whatever templates/scripting is involved makes that simple. --Tsavage (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Here's what I said in January, 2014: "We tried subpaging some months back and it was an unmitigated failure. I've slept since then and I don't remember the exact issues, but my recollection was that things weren't getting listed properly on the main page and the status bot wasn't reading the subpages correctly. Or maybe it was that the archiving bot wasn't removing closed cases from the list on the main page. I do know that there was a period in which the only way to figure out whether or not there were any new cases was to capture a daily list of subpages and compare it against the prior day's list to see if something had been added. In any event, the benefit — and there is a clear benefit — didn't come close to justifying the problems which were created. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)" I'll add this: Over at MEDCOM, where I'm the current Chairperson, we have a system in which all cases are requested, accepted or rejected, mediated, and finally closed on their own individual page (and talk page) and it's a beast to deal with: It's partially because it's not at all clear how it works behind the curtain (particularly for a non-coder like me) and partially because the limited instructions which were written at the time of its creation needed to be changed as the system evolved but weren't or were kind of updated in one place, but not in another one (or two). Putting the current cases all here on one page is simple. I agree that it makes watchlisting a bit difficult, but no more so than at any other noticeboard. I !vote no. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Tsavage, it is very easy to copy the filing information across to another page/sub-page; Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V the source text and it should be fine, but I'm pretty sure most browsers today have "tabs" which is an easy workaround solution. However, my biggest concern for the sub-pages is how Hasteur and their bot will be able to "detect" the edits to the sub-pages, so as to update the "last time edited" table, which is probably one of the main reasons DRN evolved into how it runs today. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC). Post edit conflict: in terms of the archive bot, that was why I wished to keep the filing form on the main page though I'm certainly not opposed to the form being copied to the sub-pages; keeping the filing form on the main page also helps keep tabs on what is open, closed, whatever, which is why I made my suggestion above. I'm not just a pretty user page. Drcrazy102 (talk)
@Drcrazy102: If that's the way the volunteer corps wants to go, what I could do is rewrite some of the bot's code so that it gets the list of DRN "case" subpages and does a count off that. The status bot is not going to be the one that chokes. It's the Archiving bot/routine to figure out which ones are ripe for being delisted.
In my mind the page (as of this revision) would look something like the following
=Current disputes=
{{Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Talk:David L. Jones}}
The idea is that everything from the specific dispute header to the end of the dispute will be encapsulated in the subpage. It will mean that the bot will have to open each subpage, extract the text, and run the same parsing logic that we already have on it. If you want to move forward with this, I ask you put it to a RFC to establish the will of DRN participants (volunteers meadiating and users seeking DR) to determine what to do. If there looks like there is consensus, I think I will need to file an amendment to the original bot authorization to indicate the difference in how the bot works (as certain editors get bent out of shape when it appears a bot I run is not covered 100% under existing authorizations). I see 3 phases: What we are at now, a hybrid state between the way we currently handle disputes and the subpages, and full subpages with an evolution from each of the states as we close out old disputes. Hasteur (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
@Hasteur: I have amended the paragraphing coding so that it neither breaks your formatting, nor creates 'highlighted source code' in the editing window (pink highlighted text). I hope that this an agreeable change so that text following your post is not incorrectly highlighted as being coded nor is your formatting broken. This is only a code formatting change, no wording or formatting should be affected or changed as a result. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Hasteur:, thanks for the input and providing a look into how the coding could change on the actual page. Perhaps asking Σ, the owner of the archive bot, if they have any ideas on that may help, or we may have to resort to using the WP:GOCE archive method; get out a mouse/keyboard, and do it manually . Neither should be much of an issue, though there could also again be a possibility for procedure change; when closing and manually archiving a case, the archiver sends a notice to the involved parties that contains the closing statement/reason so that it can be done at the same time as closing.
TransporterMan, would it be possible to create a "clone" of the DRN page to experiment on before doing a final implementation if there is consensus to change to a sub-page based system? That way we can try to avoid any problems encountered last time by "bug-checking" a 'live' version. Also, could I please make the RfC? I love doing them. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't WP:SPI already have the needed infrastructure for creating case-specific pages, adding them to the main page's table, and updating the table as edits are made to the case pages? Jeh (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, WP:SPI seems to have the same or a very similar format, but with subpages. Since people have been asking for this for it seems well over a year, we should act on it, running the RfC if that is necessary, or just going ahead because it is common sense. Especially for an area like DRN, we should make monitoring recent changes as easy and non-distracting as it is for most other pages, that can be simply watchlisted. --Tsavage (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I have a couple of further concerns that would need to be addressed. SPI and MEDCOM both have heavily-invested volunteer communities which monitor and insure that listed cases get attention. Here at DRN our active volunteer population — the ones who look at cases on a daily basis — is often limited to two or three volunteers. Newcomer volunteers, I rather suspect, decide to sign up by scanning down the main page to see if there's something there which interests them. I fear that if all the main page consists of is a list of links to subpages that we may lose those newcomers who don't want to have to click into each subpage to see what it's about and then click back to the main page to go to the next one. At MEDCOM our pending requests page transcludes, collapsed, the full content of each pending request page. I suppose that could work here (though I wouldn't collapse them), but the bot probably shouldn't remove the transclusion until the case is closed (so as to make it easier for other volunteers and the coordinator to monitor the progress of the case). I will say that that method is likely to be confusing for disputants who are newcomers unless the "edit" link on each case takes them to the edit page for the subpage. If they try to edit the entire mainpage, they won't find the case and are unlikely to understand how transclusion works. It could also be confusing due to the fact that even if the edit link takes them to the subpage edit page that when they click "preview" or "save page" what will come up will be the subpage not the main page and if they watchlist the main page rather than the subpage they won't be alerted (I don't think, maybe I'm wrong) to changes in their case. We can, of course, explain all of that to them but, as all of us regulars have seen, they don't read the very brief instructions that we already have. Finally, let me reiterate that the system we have now is relatively simple to understand, operate, and maintain and any system of subpaging will not be. Returning to my opening theme, the other forums which have that have a heavily-invested volunteer community to do that, and that has not been the experience of DRN. @Drcrazy102: I'm afraid I don't have the coding expertise to answer your question. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Cart before horse trying to get a subpage paralell setup. Until we get a consensus that we want to run a trial (and I'm only seeing a few volunteers agitating for it over the opposition of several editors who have seen this proposal come around a few times, In the words of Hector BarbossaI'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request. Means "no". Hasteur (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The reasons for opposing this proposal seem to center around not knowing how to make the change, and the possible value of the current inconvenient setup in promoting DRN to prospective volunteers. It seems kinda ironic that this simple suggestion by users of Dispute Resolution is starting to be framed by moderators as a...dispute initiated by a "few ... agitating editors"? I'm not sure who the "several editors" opposing are? --Tsavage (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps taking the splinter out of your own eye would allow you to see that people like TransporterMan and myself who have been around since the dawn of DRN point out (rightly) that this has been tried before to disasterous results. Hasteur (talk) 13:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@TransporterMan: The MedCom example is not exactly what is being suggested as far as I can tell but I am likely looking at the wrong page (though it is sans "collapse box" style/formatting, as you said). Please see User:Drcrazy102/DRN transclusion demonstration which I have set-up to show what I believe Hasteur is suggesting as transclusion. The transclusion will show the actual dispute case, or we may decide to keep the filing form and dispute summaries on the main page and only sub-page, and transclude, the discussion section between moderator and involved parties. Either way, it will be similar to the set-up on the demonstration page (current as of 05:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)). Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Chiming in here (Hi, all!). I was around when we tried transclusions for the first time (and wasn't fond of the idea). The primary reason was the ability for volunteers to keep an eye on cases. With an SPI/RFM type setup, volunteers that haven't added the case to their watchlist will see it once and that's it, so cases have the potential to be "hidden away" and get out of control by having participants discuss it amongst themselves without any outside intervention. With all cases on one page, changes are visible on the watchlist of volunteers who can be alerted to activity somewhat better. It has benefits as well ask downfalls, but if I recall, we compared the results of the trial of subpaging versus the current setup and cases were less attended to when subpaged (I'd have to find the data to confirm this though). So, yeah. My perspective is that the current setup, in terms of accessibility for volunteers, is better (and at this stage, most important). StevenCrossin (was Steven Zhang)05:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
That looks quite good. Not sure what the change # to / note refers to. Right now, I get down to a case, and click edit, and I'm on the subpage, where I can watchlist it, which is ok, but a little not intutive. I'm also not clear on the spec for volunteers: all-on-one-page is to allow volunteers to easily monitor cases, in case they don't watchlist the cases they're handling? --Tsavage (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Well Tsavage... when I was trying to transclude the individual sections, I attempted transcluding straight from the DRN page ... that didn't work very well as I ended up with 5 transclusions of the DRN page in full, rather than the specific sections. So I had links which had the #/section code rather than a //page code when I was doing the first round of coding. I then must have done the fix of moving the then-current pages to user-space sub-pages and forgotten to remove the note about # vs. / . I've fixed it now so there isn't that confusing note. Sorry about that; Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I have now created two proposal versions of transcluded DRN cases from my user-space based on the original idea of entirely transcluded cases, and my counter-proposal of partially transcluded cases due to techincal limitations. The first features the cases being entirely transcluded from a sub-page; the second features only the discussion being transcluded from a sub-page while the original filing form is maintained on the main DRN page. I will start writing an RfC to find consensus on whether to have transcluded cases, per the valid "cart before horse" point raised earlier, and (if so) which type of transclusion the DRN Volunteers would like to follow. TransporterMan, can I ask if the RfC could be have a notice sent out to those editors that are currently listed as being a volunteer? Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure that it matters. It is important that all of the parties including the filing party be listed and that all of them have the opportunity to make statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I left a note at the disputed article's talkpage, suggesting that (in line with moderator's request) discussion be halted there, while DRN case is in progress. GoodDay (talk) 12:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey GoodDay, while the comment may or may not have been directed at you (assuming bad or good faith respectively), it is true. Discussions on DRN should feature some form of compromise. If editors refuse to compromise, then the discussion is useless and the point of DRN is defeated. I don't know about other volunteers but I won't remove the comment, but won't oppose someone else if they feel it does violated any civility guides. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I won't throw a tantrum if it isn't removed ;) Anyways, if the other participants are still in general agreement with me? Then you're correct, there's nowhere for this DRN case to go, but down to defeat. GoodDay (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey there GoodDay, I did at the time consider some action on the comment as it did focus on conduct and not content, however I ultimately decided not to as it was a comment directed to reaching a decision, and not the past conduct of contributors. Also, it wasn't uncivil, and I felt it would only be inflammatory to take action. Thanks for your understanding. JQTriple7talk09:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
There appears to be an indirect back-and-forth spat between two of the participants, since a notes proposal was brought forward by an uninvolved editor. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
To moderator JQTriple7. To clarify -- my last post at case-page, was directed towards Tsavage & his notes proposal. GoodDay (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey GoodDay, could I ask (for reasons of future clarity) that you place a {{replyto}} template near the start of a comment if it is directed to a particular editor? I'm not sure how long the case will continue for, but this will help clear the air about who is saying what to whom. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Usually depends on how we (DRN volunteers) feel a discussion will work best. If editors can't talk nicely with each other, we try to limit them commenting to each other and act through us, as mediators for both sides. However, other discussions - such as the current - work better with forum discussion. This is probably one of the few places on Wiki that common sense is liberally applied, but I'm a bit biased. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Myself & Miesianiacal have for years disagreed on how to display the United Kingdom and the 15 other Commonwealth realms throughout Wikipedia. That's why I'm reluctant to get into a ping-pong dispute with him here. It's better that the other 3 involved parties have their say. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
There were only ever five listed as involved parties. Three--Killuminator, yourself, and myself--have commented today. DerbyCountyinNZ never contributed. That leaves two: Neve-selbert, who hasn't been heard from in 12 days, and Qexigator, who jumped in later, but hasn't been heard from in 11 days. Two others who gave suggestions (including Tsavage, who put forward the note column suggestion) made it clear they're uninvolved. So, who are these three you're waiting for? This mediation attempt wraps up in less than two days. --₪MIESIANIACAL06:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I understand that you're frustrated about not being able to impliment the changes you want at the article-in-question. But right now, you're beating a dead horse. There's simply no consensus for what you want. Please, accept that & move on. GoodDay (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for determining for me what it is that frustrates me. You're right, it has nothing to do with the fact you never answer a question I put to you or what that particular obstinacy is only a part of.
Perhaps an RfC is called for? If this is such a large problem and you both refuse to compromise enough with each other to reach a consensus, then I am happy to help write a draft RfC either on the DRN page (which isn't a problem, we just update the {{DNAU}} template when, and if, needed) or on the talk page of the list. I will copy my suggestion into the case discussion. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 06:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I'll leave that choice to Miesianiacal. FWIW, at the article-in-question, Mies had no support & was opposed by atleast 4 editors. GoodDay (talk) 06:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
@GoodDay: RfCs typically garner more attention than "at least 4 editors", so they form a better consensus, though this is a topic that is likely to get messy unless the RfC is regulated/moderated. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
RFCs are not "moderated". Any editor can watch an RFC (by watchlisting the talk page that it is on) and can take action against disruptive editing, but such an editor does not have the authority of a DRN moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Should I formally close the case? I left my own closing comment, and I'm listed as the Volunteer in the DRN case table, but I'm not sure if I'm the official moderator, since I jumped in towards the end as an uninvolved editor. Please lemme know. --Tsavage (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Tsavage, the case table is only to let users (particularly us, the Volunteers) know when the discussion of a case was last updated, and if the case is new/in discussion/closed/stale. It doesn't really serve much other purpose. So if a case hasn't been updated in the last 6-8 days, then we can close the case as "stale" since no volunteer(/s) want to accept it/discussion has dried up for whatever reason and recommend another venue if required. Hope this helps in the future. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, it is disadvantageous to tell a filing party to add additional parties without closing the case. They will invariably do so without adding summary sections for the new parties (and since so many filers are newcomers, I cringe to think what they might do if we told them they have to do that) and if they notify them at the same time they add them (as we should tell them to do), then the new parties will come along and not realize that they need to make an opening statement. If they don't watchlist the case, then the case will never be opened because essential parties are missing. What I think a volunteer should do is either:
Just add the parties, create summary sections for them, and notify them himself/herself, or
Administratively close the case to force the filing party to go back to the listing template to refile with the additional parties.
If there's just one or two missing parties, I usually do the first; if there's more then I usually do the second. But I don't tell them to add the parties themselves. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
This is a great notification and I hope many here will consider it. Me....I can only imagine what that RFA would look like. LOL! ;)--Mark Miller (talk) 05:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Premature close?
Good day, I closed the Talk:London Action_Resource_Centre DRN request on account of what I felt to be insufficient discussion. The filer has expressed a concern on my talk page that my close may have been premature. I would appreciate if other DRN volunteers might comment. If consensus is that my close is premature, any DRN volunteer is free to revert my closure and reopen the case. Thank you, /wia🎄/tlk19:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I was about to close the request as premature when you did the same. So at least one other DRN volunteer agrees with you. I think that the parties should discuss for at least one day with at least two exchanges. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
DRN After Third Opinion
I see in the Dodge Tomahawk dispute that a third opinion was previously requested and provided, and that the dispute has now come here. My question is whether it would be reasonable to invite (but not require) the editor who provided the third opinion to participate in the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
It makes sense to me to invite them as someone who may have some knowledge of the case if nothing else. That said, I don't think their participation should be required either; they may feel they've already spent all the time on it that they care to spend. DonIago (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
One finesse on this: If the 3O volunteer participates, he or she should do so as a disputant not as a neutral party, unless it's just to explain, but not defend, the 3O. Once a 3O has been given, that's the end of the 3O volunteer's participation in the case unless he or she either (a) wants to continue to try to provide neutral dispute resolution services at the article talk page (which is outside the scope of 3O, which is only about providing an opinion and then riding off into the sunset) or (b) wants to become a party to the dispute (which casts doubt on his or her neutrality in the first place). That's just my opinion, but I've put it into my personal standards as a 3O volunteer. Were I in that position — and I mean no criticism of Finnusertop here whatsoever — I would consider myself conflicted out of participating in the DRN case and would let the 3O which I gave speak for itself. (And it's to be remembered that 3O's are nonbinding and therefore don't "count" towards consensus, as explained here.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I failed that dispute. If anyone thinks that I wasn't being sufficiently neutral about what is and is not appropriate in the voice of Wikipedia, let me know. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Cases Needing Moderators
There are multiple cases waiting for moderators. Can a message be sent to volunteers asking them to look at the cases and see if anyone is willing to accept any of the cases? I had to mark Jesus as needing attention because it is stale for lack of a moderator. It and another case involve religion, and need moderators who either do not have relevant religious beliefs or can separate their own beliefs from the dispute. I think that it may be time to ping the volunteer corps. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I've either closed or put 24-hour closing notices on the two Christian religion cases. That only leaves 2-3 cases left open and I think that there may be reasons to close one or more of them before all is done, so I don't think a mass mailing is appropriate at this time. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I will open the Mudar Zahran discussion temporarily, but would appreciate having another moderator take it over shortly. I am opening it so that it doesn't have to be retired as stale. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon:. Thank you for taking the time, unfortunately @Smartse: is not responding... As you can see, the dispute has been here for a week, I hope that you give the involved user sometime to respond so that we can avoid waiting for so long again. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I've explained what the problem is from my point of view but nothing seems to have happened. What else is there to do? An WP:RFC might be a better idea if there are no comments that help resolve the situation. SmartSE (talk) 08:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, you did explain the problem in your opening statement, but you didn't respond to my first or second statement. When I ask for a statement, I want a statement, not silence, although the statement may be "See above". It does appear that it is getting nowhere and an RFC may be needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Tagging Disputes
A case was recently filed, and then closed as premature, which was a tagging dispute. That is, the editors were arguing about whether to put a tag on an article or to remove the tag. Fortunately, we were able to dispose of it as premature. However, here is my question, and I would appreciate the comments of other editors. I think that a dispute about tagging is really something of an incomplete dispute, and that we shouldn't allow the disputants to characterize a dispute as a tagging dispute. The purpose of putting a maintenance tag on an article is to indicate that the article needs improvement, and so in dispute resolution, I think that we should focus, not on whether to tag the article, but on whether and how to improve the article. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
If it is a dispute on tagging an article with maintenance template(s), it is still a dispute and as such, it needs to be solved. Tagging is for the content of the article which is within this board's scope. So, I think we could handle tag disputes as well. Regards—UY ScutiTalk03:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but I would prefer to expand the dispute resolution to how to improve the article to remove the tag. A few editors think that the tagging of maintenance templates on articles improves the encyclopedia. It doesn't, except in that it identifies how the encyclopedia can be improved. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I've always been of the belief that in most instances we should only deal with the dispute which is brought to us. When we "focus, not on whether to tag the article, but on whether and how to improve the article" we're presuming that the editor who wants to keep or place the tag is correct and the one who wants it removed is wrong. To do that immediately makes us looked biased in favor of the first editor. I think we have to deal with the tag issue first and then, if both parties are in agreement that the tag is justified, only then go on try to fix the problems represented by the tag. But we can only do that if those problems have already been defined and substantially discussed and, in my experience, tag wars generally happen in order to avoid such a discussion. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I wasn't clear. Let me put a different spin on it. I agree that deciding that the tag is not necessary because the article is satisfactory is a resolution. (In practice, this won't happen, because, in practice, editors who want to tag articles are not likely to agree that the articles don't need tagging.) However, in some cases, the editor who imposes the tag and wants the tag kept won't say in detail how the article should be improved. While I agree that an editor who tags an article has no obligation to improve the article, they should have a reasonable idea of how to state that the article should be improved. So part of what I am saying is that, if the tagging editor can't explain how they think the article should be improved, then they aren't being collaborative. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes. As a content issue, either the tag can be removed, or the article can be improved. Non-constructive tagging is conduct issue. I agree. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Trustpilot
Can someone please briefly review and comment on my handling of the Trustpilot dispute? Was I justified in closing it because there were multiple editors who had not been notified? I will also note that, on the article talk page, the editor who filed the case was accusing a very senior and respected editor of vandalizing the article, in what was in fact a content dispute. Was I reasonable in warning that author that yelling "vandalism" to "win" a content dispute may be a way to lose the conduct dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
If there were any unlisted significant participants in the discussion, even one, your close was at least theoretically justified. Like I said earlier, if there are just one or two, I'll usually add them, but that's just me. Determining whether they're "significant" is a bit trickier, but the bottom line is whether or not they'll interfere with any resolution here if they're not included in the discussion. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
It was my judgment that they had made non-trivial comments. I think that the filing party didn't adequately list who had expressed opinions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't blame you for not participating, especially since an editor had, either ignorantly or maliciously, yelled "vandalism" to "win" the content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Concerned about DRN's status and future
I've recently closed several cases for lack of a volunteer after the case was ready for one for several days. If this continues, I fear that the continued existence of DRN may be in peril. Having said that, there is always an ebb and flow of volunteers here and there are times where there are only a few active and other times when there are many. This could well be just one of those times or, alternatively, the cases that I have been closing may simply have been so unappealing that no one wants to put out the effort to deal with them (and I don't say that to belittle that sentiment: it's an entirely valid response to some cases and, hey, we're all volunteers here and have no obligation or responsibility to do more than we care to do). My concern may be entirely unwarranted, but I'm asking everyone who is still sufficiently interested in DRN to have this page on their watchlist to at least give serious consideration to keeping a eye on the main page and to taking a case when you see us backing up, even if you might not otherwise. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
Can someone please comment? I don't accept a case if I am working a case. That is, I take one case at a time. I know that some of these cases may seem boring to other volunteers, but I would suggest that boring cases, in which the moderator knows nothing, are really the best way to become an experienced moderator? Can the volunteers here do better this week than they did last week (just dropping the cases)? I don't want to be a complainer, but did you come here to complain, or to help? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps we need some automated way to remove those editors from the list that have not participated as a volunteer after one year?--Mark Miller (talk) 03:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
For now, would anyone mind if I pinged the "members" on the list who haven't been active recently to see if they are only 'hibernating' such as Doniago is doing, or if they simply forgot to remove themselves? I will make a table for them to check off whether they still wish to be members or to be removed. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps we need an incentive for inactive people to remove themselves? For instance, one can sign up for RfC notifications for subjects that are of interest to them; presumably if one had no interest in RfCs susbsequently they would disable such notifications. DRN lacks any similar mechanism though...unless I come to the page I don't even know what the current disputes are, much less if any of them are of subject matter pertinent to my interests (whether I should actively participate in DRN cases pertinent to my interests is, I suppose, another question). Probably conflating a bunch of different issues here. Sorry for that, dealing with a bit of a head cold right now. Scattered thoughts are preferable to none at all? DonIago (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
This sounds like a good idea, i.e. making DRN Volunteer notifications, though there are several things that would need to change. First would be the auto-form to include some kind of tag (probably similar to an RfC tag), second would be creating a new "DRN Request for Volunteers" list for the RfC Bot, or perhaps DRN Clerk Bot, to use to figure out who to send notifications to, and third is actually prodding the lazy sods inactive DRN members to use the new list. What do other's think about this? Possible, not possible, bit ambitious? Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I am going to do my best to take a case this week. It will be my first, so I'll probably choose an easier one (if such a thing exists). /wia/tlk01:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I didn't realize the situation was dire. I have signed up as a volunteer and already identified a request I'd accept, if the other party to it agrees to the DRN. I've actually been meaning to get involved here for a long time, so now seems opportune enough. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I've changed my preferences so that new posts and edits on my watchlist will result in an e-mail being sent to me. Hopefully I'll be more on-the-ball with volunteering. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I come by every now and then and try to help a little here and there but I got my head chewed off and we developed this new system rotating coordinators because I tried to keep things going when no one else would. Frankly, I don't know what else will work. Suggestions?--Mark Miller (talk) 03:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Before the Kriyananda dispute was opened, there were several statements made that were basically hostile, and had to be collapsed as commenting on contributors. Then I opened the case for content discussion, and nothing was said in more than two days, at which point I failed the case as abandoned by both editors. How common is that, that the editors don't discuss content after the moderator explains what the ground rules are? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
It's not uncommon. The key is in the responding party's contribution page. A very large portion of cases that come to DR involve editors who are NOTHERE for one reason or another or - closely related - are here only to work on one article or subject, according to their own lights and with little interest in learning how things really work around here - or to do much which involves more than edit warring or arguing at the talk page. When they're pressed to do more than that, they disappear. That may not be what has happened in that particular case - editors stop editing for all kinds of real world and wiki-reasons and many others don't realize that you can't really expect to deal with problems here if you only edit sporadically - but it fits the pattern. I don't see it as a problem; it's just another example of the principle that time wounds all heels. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that I am about to close another case due to no response. It appears that some editors file cases in late December, or other seasons when they don't plan to participate, without thinking that they are expected to participate. I once had an editor claim on about 18 April that I shouldn't have closed his case so close to 15 April, which is the date for the filing of income tax returns in the United States. (I didn't reopen it.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The editors resumed edit-warring the article. I had to fail the dispute resolution. If they want to resolve the content issue, they can use an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
190.150.36.88
I had to close this request "straight out of the box", not only because it was badly filed, but because the requester is also making legal threats. BLP doesn't apply, since the subject isn't living, but verifiability and sourcing do. More importantly, we have a rule about legal threats. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Volunteers needed to take cases
We have at least four cases ready for a volunteer. Please take one. Some of them will be closed as stale in the next couple of days if no one takes them. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
In the absence of disagreement, I closed it as contrary to what Wikipedia is and contrary to policy. This is one of the clearer cases of a dispute reflecting a misconception of how Wikipedia is designed and intended. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I actually think that, of cases I have seen filed in 2015, it was the case in which the filing party was most clearly out of line with policies, but it was closed in 2016. The filing party just didn't understand what Wikipedia is and that Wikipedia doesn't have official updates. Most cases are less straightforward, and most closes are less straightforward. You closed one where the close was straightforward because the filing party didn't identify the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
If you're thinking about the chart at the top of the page, the bot probably just hasn't picked it up yet. There's still a problem, however, which I'm going to confess and explain in the case section. Give me a minute. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I was referring to the top of the page. I read your response, and I believe the best thing to do is that DevilWearsBrioni retracts his RfC, which is a duplicate of this, but I'll leave it up to him, I'm Ok either way. --MorenaReka (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC) I just saw that he withdrew the RfC, so this can stay open for a volunteer now. Thanks! --MorenaReka (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I am not taking it, because I have had some bad experiences with disputes about the nationalities of people from the Balkan region. A Balkan dispute a hundred years ago resulted in fifteen million people being killed, and there are still a lot of hard feelings in the region. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
There was a malformed post to the project page about Scott Drury (an American politician) from a new unregistered editor. It requested assistance concerning sockpuppetry. I had to remove the post because it was malformed. I explained that to the unregistered editor, but said that they might not be in the right forum, because DRN is for content disputes. It turns out that one of the editors of that article has been indeffed as a sockpuppet, so that the problem may have been solved. Of course, if the unregistered editor wants content resolution, they can refile. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Argument from Authority
One of the editors in this dispute stated that the other one was engaging in article ownership. I collapsed that as commenting on content, not contributors. I opened the case for discussion. My collapsing was reverted. I then hatted those comments (a slightly stronger closure than a collapse). The hatting was then reverted. I got the following good-faith comment on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=698713699&oldid=698572904 . However, although it is a good-faith comment saying that conduct is involved in a content issue, I think it misunderstands what some of us know, which is that this noticeboard focuses entirely on content, and that some of us think that avoiding discussion of conduct is useful to get the content issue resolved. I have failed the discussion and advised the editors to address the content issue with a Request for Comments and to take the argument about ownership to WP:ANI. Does any other volunteer want to comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
As per TransporterMan's advice, I have reverted the failure and am reopening. We will see in the near future whether moderated discussion will resume. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The filing party has requested closure. They wanted closure, and they have closure again. If other editors think that the final status matters, they can propose changing it to a General Close. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
If your conclusion is that mention can be made of all scholarly opinions, including such that haven't appeared in scholarly publications the last half century or so, then I agree with you. The fact that later scholarly publications have not mentioned this point of view, is not in itself reason to consider a mention of those opinions a WP:UNDUE violation. The mention should probably be short, because otherwise that would already be a problem with WP:UNDUE. Such seems to have been agreed upon earlier, and makes imminent sense, even if there had not been earlier agreement on this. Debresser (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Campus Sexual Assault (again)
User:Nblund has posted to my talk page questioning my closure of the campus sexual assault case. Does anyone have any comments about my handling of the case? Maybe I wasn't aggressive enough in moderation, but I had stated that editors should not edit the article. When the edit-warring resumed, I thought that moderation was off-rail. Does anyone have any comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I should clarify that I'm not questioning the close so much as the process that got us there. The other editor had already signaled fairly emphatically that he was done with the process by the time you closed. I was trying to share a little (hopefully constructive) criticism of how this went down. I would have appreciated a firmer hand and more mediator engagement before it reached that stage. Nblund (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Proposed change to "Do you need assistance?" section
Hey all, I noticed the post from PanchoS in Talk:New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany#up to now discussion said that the wording of our notice at the top of the page was ambiguous and implied the use of a bot sending out the notifications of case filings. I agree that at this stage, the wording does imply that we use a bot to send out notifications even though we don't (anymore?).
I propose a change in wording to:
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing. The DRN has a template you can post to their user talk page by using the DRN notice template shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. You should then sign and date your posts with four tildes (~~~~).
@Drcrazy102: I agree that the current wording, Check that a notice was delivered to each person you add to the filing, is ambiguous. I support the proposed change. /wiae★/tlk14:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Rewording seems to have been for the best and thank you TransporterMan, I do sometimes get carried away with wikilinks on notices. I'll probably move more into a clean-up role of cases (checking notifications, involved editors, malformed/strange case filings, etc.), as opposed to a mediator role, since I am going to be very busy this year. Cheers all, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum04:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Another proposed change
I'm sorry to keep doing this, but the filing parties do raise some good areas for improvement at times. So, considering the post left here by Neve-selbert concerning: How exactly can I message them? Which template should I use? I had presumed they were already notified as they were linked on this page.
Perhaps we can add some lines to the DRN request form's last page to the effect of "you, the filing editor, need to place a notice - possibly using the {{DRN-notice}} - on the talkpage of all involved editors that have been listed."
And looking through the request form's talkpage; perhaps implementing some of the changes mentioned here may be needed to help avoid the start of incivility, though this is rarely a problem in many cases. I'd be happy to go through and try drafting some lines, if it is acceptable? Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum00:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
This case was closed because it was also pending at the edit-warring noticeboard. Both editors were blocked for 72 hours. The blocking admin advised them to come back here to DRN when they came off block. Volunteers should expect that this case will be refiled, and should be prepared for comments on contributors that may have to be hatted. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Can some other volunteer please take a look at the List of State Leaders case? It appears, as it is being discussed, that it may be too complicated for discussion here, and may need to go to formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Considering how many recent discussions and disputes have arisen around monarch titles, names, land-holdings, and now representatives' titles, I'd be willing to say it's time for ArbCom to make a decision on this area and stop the nonsense that is going on. However, for this particular case, the disputants seem, to me at least, too long-winded. I would suggest to all parties that they need to stop blabbering and actually state what their arguments are, preferably in a dot-point format and using no more than 1500 character spaces (or some other arbitrary number of your choosing) per the DRN guide of "Concise responses so Volunteers don't fall asleep reading them". If they can't abide by that, then consider "upgrading" the case to MedCom, though let the disputants know it will take quite some time (though there is no rush on Wiki[citation needed]). Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum00:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't really know what ArbCom could do. The one tool that ArbCom has that might be applicable would be discretionary sanctions, and the content disputes haven't gotten to the point where there are conduct issues that can't be settled. Anyway, we are here to try to help keep cases from going to ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I was meaning the area of Monarch's titles, related to both Monarch and their representatives, not the current case but sanctions would likely work in keeping disputes somewhat settled. I would infinitely prefer keeping disputes away from ArbCom/AN:x as well, both on DRN and normal talkpage disputes - it just seems that there are disputes popping up left and right for this area of editing/discussion which are far too complicated by editors trying to create false balances and imposing consistency where none exists, nor should since we should be using the official titles. Having a note saying "represented by/representative of/etc." seems common sense but apparently there is a deficiency of this in the original dispute on the talk page. Hopefully the editors respond concisely and can solve their dispute/s.
On a slightly different note, if I may offer an unofficial two-cents option for the RfCs; RfC1 should focus on whether or not to change the current layout, RfC2 should focus on, if change is desired, what change is desired. Disregard, or not, at your own discretion. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum01:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
We do not accept requests for dispute resolution on this page. Please use the "Request dispute resolution" on our main page to file a case here, but remember that we do not handle or discuss conduct issues, only content issues, and only handle content issues if there has been substantial on-point discussion on a talk page, preferably the article talk page. If you wish to make a complaint about a user's conduct, it can be filed at ANI but be sure to carefully read the instructions there first. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
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 am having an issue with a political opponent putting libelous material on a political figure's page and then editing out additions that are accurate and have citations to prove them. It appears that they have left out the libelous material this last time, but they continue to remove other accurate information and citations that demonstrate positive aspects of the politician. How can I make them stop? They are not following wikipedia policy by discussing these changes with me on my talk pages.
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.
Muhammad
It is my opinion that this thread needs closing for at least two and maybe three reasons. First, two of the named editors haven't responded, and discussion here is voluntary. Second, there is an RFC waiting for closure. I recently closed an RFC that was blocking further discussion and wound up getting flamed. I think that this is a more contentious topic, and I don't want to close the RFC, but will be glad to defend any volunteer or other editor who closes the RFC fairly, recuses if a volunteer here, and gets flamed. Also, one of the editors is engaging in commentary on contributors that I have to keep collapsing. Is someone willing to consider closing this thread and recommending either another RFC, formal mediation, or arbitration enforcement? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
It is also pending at the edit-warring noticeboard. That is yet one more reason to close it here. I've closed it. Unfortunately, I think that the next step (after the edit-warring reporting is dealt with) is likely to be arbitration enforcement. (If any of the edit-warriors have already been alerted, the ANEW administrator can use discretionary sanctions.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Can someone please take a look at the formatting of this case? It was malformed. I think that I cleaned it up (and advised the filing party to notify the other editors), but the bot listing is malformed in the table. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I've closed this case, but would appreciate some attention and commentary. As I noted in the case close, there are two RFCs, one closed, and one open. The closed RFC established consensus against the use of galleries of images for ethnic groups, and should be definitive. It was challenged, and the close was upheld. There is also an open RFC that appears to duplicate the closed RFC. An open RFC would itself justify declining the case. (I could have closed the case for being badly formatted, but that would be a close without prejudice, and the RFCs justify a close with prejudice.) I have raised the issue of the duplicate RFC at WP:AN. Can other volunteers please advise whether I handled the case appropriately, and also be ready for any disruption? Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Now this is closed, I think I can say this: I have some substantial doubt about whether the original RFC legitimately created or modified policy or guidelines due to the fact that it was held at a wiki-project. I'm hoping that the second RFC will pass in order to legitimize the first one as well. I support the position in both, but frankly I'd rather see both of them fail than the can of worms which is going to be opened if the second one fails. My detailed reasons for doubting the legitimacy of the first one are stated at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Duplicate_RFC and, as I said there, I may be wrong about the facts. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Although we would not consider a local consensus among the members of a WikiProject binding on the wider community, there is nothing to prevent an RfC from taking place on the talk page of a WikiProject - and indeed in this case, it could arguably be the most appropriate place to have held it. Once the RfC has been listed at multiple RfC sections and advertised centrally, it is hard to make the argument that such an RfC is not representative of community consensus. The 200 or so comments in the RfC in question came from a far broader constituency than just one WikiProject which tends to make the point that it was brought to the attention of the community at large. Considering that the close was also validated at WP:AN/I, I have difficulty in giving any weight at all to arguments that the RfC was in any way invalid. It is telling that that no-one who has cast doubt on the result of the RfC has been able to suggest a better place to have held it, nor to show that it failed to notify all of the places that any RfC is expected to.
Having said that, the closed RfC addressed the issue of image galleries in infoboxes of ethnic group articles. The currently open RfC is examining the broader question of placing image galleries anywhere in any article where the subject is a large group of people. I hope that clarifies the present position and gives some confidence to the closer of the request that his action was eminently reasonable. --RexxS (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Greetings. I would appreciate some clarity. I was mentioned in the original discussion and have just received the request to respond today - on the same date that the original RfC was closed. So are we still taking comments on the old one, the new one, or what? Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 05:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The unregistered filing party notified both registered editors of the filing, but one of the registered editors deleted the notice from their talk page, and has not replied here. My interpretation is that they do not want to take part in dispute resolution, which is voluntary. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
We shouldn't guess; removal of that kind is ambiguous. If they've not posted an initial position in a few days then we'll know. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Paid Editing
I declined a third opinion request because there were already three editors. I advised them to try WP:DRN or a WP:RFC. However, one of the editors is a paid editor. Do we have any guidelines about accepting a dispute when one of the editors is a paid editor (such as that they must disclose their conflict of interest in the opening statement, or anything like that)? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
