On the one hand, I agree with User:Nihlus that one-against-many disputes are seldom productive and that they generally waste the time of this noticeboard. On the other hand, I will comment first that two other volunteers had already addressed the Unite the Right dispute before Nihlus closed it, and second that, as we can see from the above post, abrupt closure of disputes is not conducive to retention of new editors. Does any other volunteer here think that perhaps this case was closed too abruptly? I find myself in an odd situation in that I dislike the do not bite the newcomers essay, and think that it does more harm than good, but in this case I think maybe a newcomer was bitten in the way that a dispute was closed, even if it was a one-to-many that was not going to be resolved. Comments?
Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm the other editor that commented on this case, and I've just re-read through the talk page. I'm going to disagree with the closure of the case, because it was a three-against-one situation — but there was still two contrasting and perfectly valid viewpoints that could've been addressed. I find it unlikely that dispute resolution would have succeeded (especially with so controversial a topic), however, I do think that there was grounds for a case. Again, I do understand Nihlus's rationale in closing - I don't think it was the best way to go, though. ProgrammingGeek talktome00:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@ProgrammingGeek: We shouldn't be considering the fact that there were "two opposing viewpoints", otherwise we would be wasting our time on every single dispute. The top of the noticeboard says: This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, mediation, or other noticeboards. The DRN is not built to handle one person going strongly against a solid group of editors, especially when it's about such a contentious subject. This type of problem is perfectly suited for RfC, which is where I directed them. @Robert McClenon: This wasn't bitey nor does it involve a newcomer. It is someone who has been here for years and has been previously blocked for edit warring. Nihlus02:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@Nihlus: Maybe I phrased that poorly. The viewpoint held by filing editor was reasonable, and dismissing it outright would've been a little bit... disingenuous? Maybe a 3O would have been better in any case. I'm not really finding the words to express this, maybe another volunteer could state better. Either way, the fact that the editor had been blocked is irrelevant. Taking it to DRN shows an inprovement in civil behaviour. Regards, ProgrammingGeek talktome02:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
My comment on being blocked was merely a statement to their tenure and familiarity with guidelines, not a comment on the validity of their DRN submission. 3O would have been declined since there are multiple participants in the dispute. As I said, RfC was the best route for them to go. Nihlus02:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I've not looked at the actual facts here, just at what y'all have said here, so this is just an observation on a point of view which might be useful here. ProgrammingGeek says that there were "two contrasting and perfectly valid viewpoints." In the past, I've closed many requests here because it was one or two editors arguing against a clear consensus on the other side because when that happens there is no dispute for us to resolve: it's already been resolved by consensus. Editors are free to continue to try to argue against consensus at the article talk page or users' talk pages, at least until their attempts to do so become disruptive, but because they don't like a consensus does not mean that there is a dispute. We're here to try to settle disputes, but only if the settlement is in the best interest of the encyclopedia and enabling someone to keep churning at a dispute which has already been settled through a clear consensus is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Having said that, 3 to 1 is a pretty weak consensus; I know we don't count votes, but weigh arguments, but when the arguments are equally valid (and do not violate policy), numbers count for something. Thus, if the 1's argument was even slightly better than the 3's then I wouldn't say that the consensus was clear and I wouldn't have closed this case for "no dispute", but if the two viewpoints were indeed equally valid or the 3's were better than the 1's then I might well have done so. As I began, however, I'm not adjudging the actual facts and have no opinion about them. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Just to chip in here, to say that it was 3-on-1 is a big disingenuous. The filer picked 3 editors who posted the most on the talk page, perhaps, but between the reverts and discussions in that and other sub-topics on the talk page, it is more like a-dozen-to-one. I fully welcome an RfC so this can be put top bed for good, one way or the other. TheValeyard (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@Nihlus: If you had more carefully observed and contextualized what you've been commenting on, you'd have noted what the other volunteers have correctly intuited. I most certainly am a newcomer to procedures of this depth, and the rather nebulously asserted block in question was a single case of missing a non-standard restriction in 1RR that I had no previous cause to encounter as a casual user, and were not even revisions to the same subtopic.
As to "picked 3 editors", the only other user in talk would be Rockypedia, who's comments were neutral as regards to the text/sources in question and were posted a month ago. But the claim of other editors demanding the finality of these preferred omissions is especially galling, because there were a total of three reversions by other editors of the same passage with a previous set of citations that they deemed of unacceptable notability, and when additional citations were added to amount to half a dozen of the most trafficked news and political journals in the country, another three reversions were made, all of which were demands for the case to be brought in the talk page!
As I said twice, I certainly had no higher expectations than anyone else, but particularly as I read other volunteer's concerns, I find it odd to disregard the entire option out of hand on the basis that opinions are fixed. It seems almost either a necessary implication of the folly of this board even existing, or a necessary implication of these 3 users in what I was somehow accused of (and exclusively, at that) in the case closure. Equilibrium103 (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
@Equilibrium103: If you truly wished to reach some form of consensus, you would have followed the advice I gave you and opened a RfC. Why haven't you done so? Robert even offered to help write a neutral statement. As far as this discussion goes, I'm done participating as I am growing tired of repeating myself; I also don't understand the fixation of trying to force something through DRN when better options exist. Regardless, I don't like the follow-up behavior exhibited by you and am more convinced of my decision than ever. Nihlus02:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't mean to exasperate you, and again, if you'd been more careful in examining what you're referring to, you'd have noticed a.) that incidentally the thread in question actually started as an RfC to begin with which, again, being new to this level of procedure was apparently too elaborate, and b) I've already asked Robert for input on said neutral statement on his talk page well before you asked.
Again, I don't disagree it's a better option, but I'm looking at this from the viewpoint of the other volunteers on this board. That closure and the claims within it seem...perplexingly and conspicuously defeating of the purpose. Equilibrium103 (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
@Yashovardhan Dhanania:--To me, this is a case, where I would be cleanly supporting Davey.The only compromise can be that non-wikified names can be added iff that's supported by at least one/two very-strong-source(s), which may not be able to clinch an individual article.That's how things have worked in such cases and I remember having read a quite long discussion on the broad topic somewhere.I would be probably trying to post a statement to Buddaid's t/p, tomorrow, outside of DRN, about why Davey's approach is a much-preffered one.Winged Blades Godric17:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I am taking this case. I hope that the parties want moderated discussion, but they don't act like it. One party referred in an edit summary to "the pathetic excuse that is DRN". I have some motivation to try to improve his outlook, but that isn't a good start. Both parties seem to want to complain about each other. Maybe they will also talk about the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
If another volunteer is willing to take over as moderator, they would be appreciated. I have tried to be neutral and constructive but may have annoyed one or both editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
As one of the editors involved in the dispute regarding Talk:2017 FIA_Formula_One_World_Championship#Order_of_Toro_Rosso_drivers, it has come to my attention that Robert McClenon closed the dispute on it at the DRN. While he has multiple reasons for doing this, I would like to bring into question his first reason for closing the discussion, which was that:
"The filing editor was notified by a coordinator that they should notify the other participants in this dispute on their user talk pages, and that this thread would be considered abandoned if that was not done in a timely manner. This thread has been abandoned by failure to notify the other participants."
To my understanding, this is in fact inaccurate, as the filing editor, Wikipediaeditperson, left notifications on each participants talk page, with the only exception being their own talk page, within the time frame given by the coordinator. If this reason for closure is indeed inaccurate, I would like to seek clarification regarding whether the other reasons were enough for closure in and of themselves. Thank you. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
It was automatically archived by a bot due to the no-archive date being passed without having the no-archive date removed or edited by a volunteer and no activity within 24 hours. I suggest that editors go back to the article talk page and use a Request for Comments. Other options are also available. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Nyheter Idag
This case was archived by a bot while it was being moderated. This happens if the do-not-archive date is passed (without being edited by a volunteer) and there is no activity in 24 hours. If the parties and the moderator want to continue discussion, the case can be un-archived and moved back to the noticeboard. Alternatively, the parties should resume discussion at the article talk page, or use a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Undiscussed newsletter
Apparently, Kostas20142 created a newsletter really without discussing it with other volunteers as to 1) whether or not it is even needed given the few volunteers there are, 2) which content should be included if it is even wanted, and 3) whether or not people wanted to even be added to it. Therefore, I am opening this discussion so that it can be hashed out. I am on the verge of proposing some major DRN reform suggestions and will be done with that sometime in December; however, I feel this should be discussed sooner rather than later.
Volunteers - How often will this be included? To what extent should a newsletter go out in order to catch these changes? How is the volunteer list not enough to track this?
Awards - I find the awards distracting from the actual goal of the DRN and believe they are rather useless.
Preceding coordinator - This should say succeeding coordinator.
Ongoing discussions - Potentially helpful, but it would probably be easier to house the majority of "internal" DRN discussions in one place (such as this page) rather than having multiple discussion pages.
So at this time, I don't really find the "newsletter" useful or needed. I also find the lack of discussion problematic. Nihlus02:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
@Nihlus: To be honest, I'd myself sent a newsletter when I was coordinator (although I discussed it with TransporterMan who ultimately sent it). I'm guessing a newsletter is just a way for a DRN coordinator to inform the volunteers of any major changes that took place (because some volunteers, including myself, may not be actively watching the talk page). I don't think we need to spend time on discussing a protocol for that. One of the duties of the DRN coordinator is to rather keep all volunteers informed of any major changes which a newsletter might serve to do. I'll comment on other points you raised later. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
@Yashovardhan Dhanania: Something like this should really be discussed to some extent. I have no problem having one as long as there is support for one; however, I do not see that currently. Nihlus07:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Inactive volunteers
These volunteers will be removed from the DRN volunteer list in the coming days due to never handling a single case:
This is in spite of the rollcall as merely responding to a rollcall is not enough. We expect volunteers to volunteer. If you are removed, feel free to add yourself back once you have participated. This is so that participants have a viable list of individuals to reach out to in case they have a question about the DRN process. Thank you. Nihlus07:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
And what good does that do for DR/N? I come by and check and the times I have come by, the cases were already taken. Do you really believe that removing editors who actually do respond to roll call is helpful to the process? Atsme📞📧07:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
In a sense,I support it since listing without participation does inflate the numbers without any real purpose, bloats the list of volunteers (three of whom likely haven't got the slightest of clue about DRN) and precisely leads to the sorts of thoughts that are often echoed at NPR:--We have hundreds of reviewers but how the backlog is so phenomenally growing?. That being said, if you clearly object to any such removal, I think we couldn't do much. But, ultimately our objective is to improve participation and it would be helpful if you could chime in here amongst your other impressive works! Regards:) Winged Blades Godric07:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@Atsme: I'm not sure I believe that. I have intentionally left cases untouched in order to give others the chance to participate, so there have been ample chances for you to join in. Additionally, if I had done the roll call, I would not have listed your name or the names of the other three for the same exact reason. The first task assigned to the coordinator is "Maintain the list of DRN volunteers", which is what I am doing here. If you want to stay on the list, then feel free to join in on the open case we have right now. Nihlus08:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@TerraCodes:--about what? On a sidenote, do you know what the exact roles/duties of a DRN volunteer are? And, since you mention I also do admin work on Dispute resolution noticeboard. on your user page, there is almost nil admin work to be done over here. Winged Blades Godric09:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@TerraCodes: regarding "clerking", some tasks that need to be carried out is checking whether all parties involved have been notified, whether there has been adequate discussion, declining cases that cannot be handled by DRN (for example conduct disputes) and directing parties to other dispute resolution procedures when appropriate. --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
A simple but useful administrative task, as Kostas20142 says, is to check when new cases are filed and whether they have been filed correctly, whether there has been adequate discussion, and whether there has been proper notice. I would suggest that inexperienced volunteers not try closing cases that have been improperly filed or otherwise need closing, but leave that to more experienced volunteers. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Is it appropriate for me to make further comments here?
If so, I have two arguments:
1) I maintain the argument that the consensus against creating a critique section invalidates the criticism in the proposed section itself is false. The subject for debate in the RfC was whether to create a separate section covering criticism. This was rejected and I accept this. However, the individual edits were not debated separately, but rather amalgamated into a wider discussion around the benefits of separate criticisms sections.
Its clear that some editors gave reasons to objecting to some edits, but not others, whereas some objected without giving detailed reasons which could be debated E,g "it looks like a reddit rant" and the comments are a "carcrash". Taken as a whole it is difficult to disentangle those editors who object to a criticism section per se, and those who object to the specific edits. Therefore I have taken the approach of presenting bite-sized edits for debate outside of a criticism section.
2) I have subsequently made edits based on RS which were not originally part of the RfC, so the argument that the RfC invalidates those edits cannot stand, and these should be judged on their merits. A rejected Rfc on a criticism section cannot invalidate subsequent edits which fall outside of the RfC. Keith Johnston (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
@TransporterMan and Robert McClenon: Just letting you two know that the filing editor should go into the archive for now. Until the filing editor template can be fixed, it is clashing with the other templates as seen here.
{{DR case status|closed}}
{{DRN archive top|reason=This is already at [[Special:Permalink/813949435#Disruptive editing by Chilicheese22|ANI]]. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes [[User:Nihlus|<span style="padding:2px 2px;font-variant:small-caps;color:#000;letter-spacing:-0.5px">'''Nihlus'''</span>]] 02:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}}
{{drn filing editor|Panam2014|22:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)}}
There don't seem to be any issues on much smaller monitors, but it should be done like this until it's fixed (if ever). Thanks. Nihlus03:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
It's been clashing that way since the beginning of DRN, but putting the archive tag before the filing editor prevents easy identification of the filing editor, especially after the case rolls off to the archive. Frankly, however, I don't see it being a big deal one way or the other, except that it's been done one particular way from the beginning. That doesn't mean it can't change, of course. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure that I understand what the issue is. Maybe it is very important, but if so I have missed what it is. Can someone explain, please? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Robert, it's whether the {{DRN archive top}} line goes before or after the {{drn filing editor}} line. If it goes before then the filing editor information at the top of the archive goes into the collapsed part of the archive and cannot be seen without expanding the archive. If it goes after then the filing editor information can be seen above the collapsed part of the archive, but the closing reason and the filing editor information sometimes visually overlap in a jumbley kind of way, at least on some monitors. Compare the last two cases in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_145 where the volunteer did it one one way and then did it the other way. I couldn't find a overlap example, though I've seen them in the past (but I also didn't look very hard). I reminded everyone of the proper placement (after the filing editor tag) here in 2014 and the volunteer page says here that it should go after, but the volunteer page also implies a little later on the page that it should go before, though I'd argue that to be a simple oversight. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I think that I have always put the DRN archive template before the filing editor template because I have in the past always replaced the Do Not Archive Until template with the DRN archive template. I did it the other way this most recent time. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Following an editor's advice at WT:RFC, I asked for advice at WT:FOOTY but my message was archived without a single comment
Another editor at WT:RFC suggested that I could try DRN again
I'm not sure how to proceed further; is DRN appropriate now or there is some other procedure that should be followed? It appears we are stuck and all dispute resolution venues are not applicable. Thanks in advance. Yavorescu (talk) 08:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Yavorescu - See WP:DISCFAIL. It appears that you have a situation where one editor does not discuss but simply reverts. If that is indeed what is happening, I don't know why you think that DRN will help. We can't force an editor to discuss. You may go ahead and request DRN, and a volunteer is likely to try to help, but it will probably be closed as failed. I think that a Request for Comments is more likely to work. Go ahead and file for DRN, though. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I followed precisely WP:DISCFAIL, including the usage of the talkback template. I even waited more time than what is recommended in the essay. I filed a report at WP:ANI but no action was taken, so it is not clear what to do when reverting without discussion is apparently not considered disruptive editing. Two editors at WT:RFC said that RfC is unlikely to be helpful so that's why I asked here. Assuming that DRN fails, what could be done to resolve the dispute? Yavorescu (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Yavorescu - So that I don't have to wade through the entire history, what editor is it whom you think is being intractable? Also, why did the other editors at WT:RFC say that they think that RFC will not work, and why does that mean that DRN will work? I don't like to be discouraging, but, when DRN is entirely voluntary and RFC is binding, why do you think that DRN might be a useful next step? If someone says that RFC isn't likely to work, either they are being too pessimistic, or they mean that nothing will work. I don't like to be discouraging, but I would rather be discouraging than dishonestly give false hopes. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The user is Rebelheartous; the edit that lead me to file a report at ANI is this. I don't think that DRN might be a useful next step, that's why I asked here first. I don't know why the editors at WT:RFC think so, I just assumed that they are more knowledgeable than me. RfC didn't work for PFC CSKA Sofia (different dispute but much more famous club), so I doubt it'll help us either. Basically, if I understood the guidelines correctly, RfC/DRN are for cases when consensus cannot be reached by normal talk page discussion. If the discussion didn't take place at all because one party refused to participate, it is perhaps pointless to escalate the issue to other WP:DR venues. Yavorescu (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
It is true that both RFC and DRN are for cases where consensus cannot be reached by normal talk page discussion. If one party does not discuss at all, it is true that DRN is useless, but RFC does establish binding consensus. At this point, I would say that RFC is the way to go, and that ANI normally will deal with editing against consensus that was established by RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I was going to suggest that if the dissenting editor is repeatedly reverting edits and refusing to engage in discussion, that may be a matter of edit-warring and could be addressed at WP:3RN. Editors are allowed to revert without explanation, but they're not typically allowed to do so repeatedly. DonIago (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
This is an experienced editor who will probably never violate 3RR. If we take this brutal approach, it is likely that the edit war will continue indefinitely (it's going on for nearly 5 years now). Yavorescu (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, one doesn't have to commit 3RR to be edit-warring. If they're repeatedly reverting your edit without explanation, especially if you've tried to initiate contact with them (let's say both at their Talk page and at the article's Talk page, for completeness sake), then any admin worth their title will take action regardless of whether it's a literal 3RR situation. DonIago (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I admit I didn't know this. Still, I would prefer that we exhaust all sensible DR options before resorting to this method. Yavorescu (talk) 07:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
No, I haven't. I don't think it's applicable as this is not a sensitive/political issue; the other party agrees that the merger was imposed. We don't have a disagreement about what happened in 1945, the dispute is about the end result. I was thinking about WP:RSN but since all sources are in Bulgarian, I guess it'll be rather difficult to make a decision. Yavorescu (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Two More Closes
I would like your comments on two more interesting closes that I made this evening (well, in the evening in Maryland; it's always evening somewhere).
In checking the status of Survivor: Ghost Island, I became initially confused because the talk page and the article didn't seem to match. On further checking, I saw that one of the editors had redirected the article to the article on the series, which is a back-door delete of the article. This was done to prevent the introduction of questioned content. In my opinion, this back-door delete wasn't necessary because the questioned content was being introduced by unregistered editors and the article had already been semi-protected, but that is only my opinion. In any case, the situation is, as a result, now beyond the scope of this noticeboard, and the redirection can be argued either as a front-door deletion at AFD or as a conduct issue at WP:AN. I closed the thread.
I also closed Nigeen Lake. For one thing, the talk page discussion was inadequate, and wasn't really about content. The talk page discussion included what appear to be comments about the caste of an editor. As an American, my understanding is that caste in Indian society and politics is similar to race in American society and politics, a divisive hereditary factor with a tragic history, and certainly not a matter that is relevant to the validity of an edit on an article that isn't about caste (or race). Besides, the filing editor said that the action that they wanted was to ban an editor, and that isn't what DRN is for. I wasn't entirely sure whether any one of these issues was worth closing the case, but it looked like it needed closing.
User:Nihlus - You put a template on the talk page of the filer of the Alex Jones case saying that you had closed the dispute. What template did you use? It seems like a good idea sometimes (including in this case where the filing party is tendentious). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
It was a good-faith filing by an editor who apparently expected something from the dispute resolution process that can't be provided, so that I thought that a longer closure explaining how we (DRN volunteers) see the situation was in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Request to Move Issue
I recently made a request for move of a title page Edge (wrestler) to Adam Copeland. I placed multiple sources to defend my stand on the subject and was then told the sources I placed proved nothing when in fact they proved exactly what the Request for move is supposed to prove that Adam Copeland is being mentioned in the media under his real name more then the Edge character and Im bringing the situation here because of the opinions of other aren't allowing the sources to be recognized as definitive sources. I feel like they are just being dismissed without being taken into consideration as I feel they should be. It seems like two editors who oppose the change are making mentions of how their mom knows the edge character over Adam Copeland as a actor and trying to compare the credibility of Adam Copeland's acting stating he isn't a big enough actor to be recognized as his Edge character regardless of finding all the sources that show his recognition in the media as Adam Copeland over a the name of a fictional character Edge. WP:COMMONNAME has also been mentioned because they feel The Edge fictional character is more relevant then the Adam Copeland name and I respect that but I feel like my sources aren't even being taken seriously as I was told Listing credible sources don't prove anything as if they are being shoved off and not even considered. JMichael22 (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I closed two filings of disputes about the Cold War and would appreciate comments from other volunteers about the closures (not from editors about the merits). Filing two cases on closely related subjects within 48 hours seems tendentious and not likely to help, and a possible sign that, if the content does need to be mediated, it needs a more experienced mediator than we have here. Also, both of the cases, and especially the two viewed in conjunction, looked like one editor editing against consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Request on Closing Cases
I would like to make a request to volunteers on closing cases that need closing. When possible, can you advise the filing party as to what action they should take if filing the case here isn't the way to resolve it? In particular, on one-against-many cases, I agree that it is a waste of our time to try to handle the case, but I would suggest that the filing editor be reminded that they have two choices, to accept that consensus is against them, or use a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I realize that there are some cases that are so poorly filed that all that a volunteer can do is to try to close the case as cleanly as possible to avoid breaking the archival bot. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Need for Volunteer Input
I am asking for other DRN volunteers to comment on four cases that are currently in non-closed statuses. I am really a little puzzled as to what to do about any of them. None of them appear to be a content dispute.
On the Mexicans dispute, it appears, as noted, that the issue has to do with some sort of original research, in particular what I see is that an editor may be doing some sort of mathematical treatment of data that amounts to synthesis. It probably should be closed, but what advice should be given to the filer? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
The editors did not respond after waiting a reasonable amount of time, and the case has been closed. I still have very little idea what it was. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
On the British Empire and Afghanistan dispute, it now appears that the question has nothing to do with Afghanistan, because the question appears to be which of two maps to use, but neither of them includes Afghanistan as part of the British Empire? Should I close it as resolved, or is that too hasty? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
On the belly dance issue, I see that the filing party is passionate about the subject matter and the dispute, but I don't know what the dispute is. The filing party does appear to be saying that another editor is deleting sourced material, but I am not sure that there is a content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
On the dispute about a Spanish political party, I don't understand the original poster's statement. Unfortunately, I find it incomprehensible. Is there a language problem? I don't want to close it without being sure that there isn't a content dispute that we can try to resolve, but the discussion appears to be name-calling. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
This dispute has been apparently resolved because the editor whom the filing party was trying to report (and this noticeboard isn't for "reporting" of editors) was blocked as a sockpuppet. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, didn't know it would be so incomprehensible. I'll summarize it for you to make it easier.
1. Spanish political party sporadically defined itself as "center-left" in its beginnings, now is ostensibly "right or center-right nationalist" with quite a few far-right people in it or endorsing it.
2. The wiki article has a section echoing fact number 1. with references. Removing this section would leave an article categorizing Cs as a "center" or "center-left" party, the opposite of the current consensus.
3. The other user erased the entire section several times to try to mask fact 1.
4. The other user contends that pointing out fact 1. equates to "abuse" and "propaganda". Imagine devoting an article to the Dixiecrat Party that defined it as a Democratic Party offshoot but said nothing about its real politics? And if you tried to devote a section to them, imagine seeing that section erased. Saving distances this is the case here.
The rest of the discussion is about the other user basically calling 2 million Catalans racist. He turned the discussion about Cs into a discussion about the real issue behind his edits, which is his personal point of view about Catalonia. He even "suggested" to me that I close this DRN down because, in his opinion, DRN is not the adequate avenue for this.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The other editor resolved the issue about the Spanish political party by saying that the issue should be resolved by an RFC. Since DRN is voluntary, that thread has been closed. (That request again raises the question of what should be done if an editor, in particular the filing editor, does not have enough command of English to engage in dispute resolution without help.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, it has nothing to do with my command of English. It's either your lack of general culture about Spanish, European or general politics, or your general incompetence to arbitrate issues of a certain complexity. Or perhaps (who knows) your lack of objectivity about the subject. Or a combination of all of the above. I would suggest you stick to American politics. CodeInconnu (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I would like to ask what volunteers are available to handle disputes right now. This isn't about who will be available in February, or who has been available in the past, or who will want to be available in the near future. We have four cases that may need moderators that I am trying to handle right now, although I am not sure whether they are suitable for this noticeboard. If you want to help, please help now. I will not be upset or annoyed at having someone else take over the cases that I am trying to handle. Thanks. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
An often quoted essay in Wikipedia is There is no deadline. I agree strongly with the principle of this essay, but I wonder whether it creates an interesting and anomalous situation in dispute resolution. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and volunteers work on very different schedules, with no particular effort to harmonize those schedules. We just do what we do as we can. The problem is that this causes dispute resolution to be something of a misfit operation. Someone posts a case request here. It gets read by volunteers when it gets read by volunteers. Maybe one of them comments. Maybe the Original Poster follows up. Maybe one of the Other Editors follows up. A volunteer asks a question about the scope of the case. Sometimes someone answers quickly. Sometimes no one answers for a while.
I am wondering, first, whether anyone else sees the same awkwardness as I do in trying to fit together different people who not only have different strongly held views but different schedules. Also, second, I am wondering whether something should be said to the effect that, once someone requests assistance with a case, it really would be useful for the Original Poster to stick around and respond to queries quickly. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Maybe it is just me, but it has been seeming that some of the disputes that have been filed recently have had an on-again-off-again rhythm (or dysrhythm) because one disputant was free when another wasn't and vice versa. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
One of the issues that I believe contributes to this is the lack of a dedicated subpage to the case. I think it becomes difficult to follow some of the conversations (especially for newer users) when all of the cases are held on the same page. There would need to be some changes made to the bot, but I think it is a direction that we should head in. Nihlus22:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
That may be, but I am not sure how that would impact the on-again-off-again dysrhythm that, of the multiple people in a case, sometimes one participates and sometimes a different one does. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I have very little experience with the DRN process, but there's an ongoing dispute that's proven particularly challenging. Part of the difficulty is that the two most active parties generate an extraordinary amount of text on a range of related points. I think DRN has potential to be of use, but it's crucial that more than just these two parties be involved -- and for that to happen, it seems like there would need to be some kind of word limit. I think they might agree to that, but I wonder if that's something there's precedent for here? (or it may even be standard and I'm just ignorant) — Rhododendritestalk \\ 01:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
User:Rhododendrites - What is the article? I will be glad to take a look and offer my opinion as to whether it is the sort of content dispute that could be handled here. It is the usual rule for the moderator to instruct the parties to be civil and concise. (I generally say that civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution, and that overly long statements may make the author feel better but do not help clarify the issues.) We don't normally use a word limit to define concise, but if I am the moderator and am asked to impose word limits, I will. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: There is indeed. There is a section labeled RfC that does not have an RfC tag. That one... has not gone well. The newer one concerns just the disambiguation, which is one of the many tangents of the basic questions. It also, IMO, is a WP:SNOW case on that specific issue. I've decided, however, to try something before trying DRN. Would still welcome your feedback if you're up to it, though. Thanks. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 05:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
self-closing threads
I closed the thread about Talk:Alexei Navalny that I started because we were able to back-down from the impasse. Your instructions aren't clear about such situations and I'd like to know if there's guidance about an editor closing a request they started in which no other party commented. Chris Troutman (talk)01:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
User:Chris troutman - The instruction aren't clear about that situation because they aren't something that often happens in which the participants resolve the matter after filing but before a moderator takes the thread. If the participants resolve the matter after a moderator takes the thread, the moderator can close it, but in this case you closed it in advance. Under the circumstances, what you did was helpful. I don't think that the instructions need to be clarified, because this is not a a typical situation, only a reasonable one. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I would think that it is self-evident that the sections in a dispute labeled "Summary of Dispute by" should only be filled in by those people. However, in the Kulala dispute, just closed by Godric (thank you), the filer used those sections to insert their complaints about the other parties. Do we need to explain in our instructions that these sections are for the named parties, or is it clear enough that using them to insert complaints is disruptive? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon:--Meh.I don't see any need for any change esp. given that the topic area of Castes is heavily outlying and it attracts hordes of semi-competent-POV-pushers.Still, if you wish so, we can definitely add a comment stating something along the likes of:--This section is only meant to be edited by the mentioned disputant.~ Winged BladesGodric17:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Everyone involved in dispute resolution needs to be aware of this discussion and survey. Edit summaries have been recently increased from about 250 characters to 1000 characters. See my !vote here about that issue, but your opinion may, of course, go the other way. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Recent Closes
I would appreciate any feedback from other volunteers (not from participating editors) on the recent closes of the following cases:
Alpha Centauri. Was there something that could have been done to get the discussion on track?
Por amar sin ley. Am I correct that discussion on an editor's talk page is not a substitute for discussion on an article talk page? This happens often enough that I will ask whether we should reword the instructions to clarify that discussion on the article talk page is required and that user talk page discussion is not a substitute.
Matthew Island and Hunter Island. Is there agreement that we are not well-suited to handle an off-and-on issue with a dozen or so editors?
Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School. Is there agreement that it isn't useful to try to tease out what parts of a multi-part dispute are content disputes that we can handle while there is a discussion at a conduct forum?
Are there any volunteer editors for this noticeboard who are available to mediate disputes? Some of our requests seem to be just lingering waiting for a volunteer. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Question for Volunteers - Support for Paid Editors
I have a question for the other volunteers. I would like to ask whether this noticeboard should be a way for paid editors to request assistance from neutral editors. We have two cases open at this time that were filed by paid editors who have, in accordance with the paid editing guidelines, requested changes to articles, rather than directly editing the articles. It seems that in each case a volunteer editor has not made the requested edits, and we are being asked to mediate. I would like to know whether we should have a guideline about the extent to which paid editors can expect our volunteer editors to help them. In each case, there is already at least one neutral volunteer editor, in the sense that we are all neutral volunteer editors if we are not being paid, but the paid editor is not satisfied and wants a second neutral volunteer editor to be more neutral.
By the way, I realize as I write this that I am not being neutral and may appear to be unsympathetic to paid editors. Well, I am not neutral and am not sympathetic to paid editors, and won't be the noticeboard volunteer who will represent the interests of the paid editor, but should this noticeboard be a place where a paid editor who has complied with the rules can expect to find an advocate?
User:Johnbod - No. COIN is the normal and correct place for inquiries into whether conflict of interest has been properly disclosed. What we have here is two cases that have been filed by paid editors who have properly disclosed their conflict of interest, but who are requesting that we, the volunteer community, make edits that they are requesting. See my comments on the project page about Iteris, where the issue seems to be that a paid editor isn't satisfied with the work being done by an unpaid editor. The COI has already been properly declared. In both cases, the paid editor wants another volunteer editor to mediate between them and the first volunteer editor. So it isn't a case for COIN. It is a matter of whether this noticeboard can be used by paid editors to request help in rewriting an article. My thought, as I said on the project page, is that they can rewrite the article on their own web site, but that is what I am asking the volunteer community. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Robert McClenon: I would just like to note for the record that I came to the dispute resolution noticeboard at the suggestion of Spintendo as a result of our content dispute (scroll to the bottom of this thread). The two of us had stalled because we have a drastically different reading of Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks, Danilo Two (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Danilo Two - My question was addressed to the other Wikipedia volunteer editors. This project talk page is not really meant to be used to re-litigate DRN threads. Also, as I noted on the project page, it is hard for me to tease out from the discussion there what are the substantive issues about article conduct and what are the procedural issues about Wikipedia guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Follow-Up - May Need a Policy Discussion
This comment is primarily for the benefit of the volunteer editors, although I know that the paid editors are also reading it. I see a slowly growing problem having to do with disclosed paid editors. Our policies and guidelines require paid editors to disclose themselves, and provide sanctions against undisclosed paid editors. However, the rules concerning disclosed paid editors, which provide that they may make edit requests that can be serviced by volunteer editors, seem to be interpreted by paid editors as meaning that they can use the volunteer editors as scribes, as intermediaries, and the paid editors seem to think that they have a right to have their servants, the volunteer editors, account for every variance between their edit requests and how their requests are served. I think that I need to take this concern to Village pump (Policy), because I think that our policies and guidelines need to be clarified to make it clear that paid editors are indeed beggers and not masters, that they have a right to ask, but no right to demand an accounting of whether they get what they ask. This is awkward, because the paid editors really are trying to comply with the policies and guidelines, and the policies and guidelines really do sort of give the impression that the volunteer editors will provide this service. The policies and guidelines need to be revised to clarify that the service of making COI edits is a voluntary service, and that paid editors cannot expect a detailed accounting for why they are getting some rather than all of what they ask. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I will comment that the discussion at WP:ANI was filed by a paid editor, complaining of what they thought was problematic support of the request-edit queue, and I thought was just a case of pushing and testing limits. My concern is that, as paid editors become increasingly clueful as to how Wikipedia works, they are becoming increasingly able to use dispute resolution processes to request what they want, that is, more favorable articles, but in a way that volunteer editors may see as not neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I would appreciate comments on any of various recent closes, but especially two today, in which the deletion discussion of Mark Worth is allowed to run, and the origins of the Romanians issue, which is being sent to FTN. Every few months we do get a request concerning an AFD, and the answer is always to let the AFD run. In this case it looks like forum shopping, and I had to admonish the filing party, who is being aggressive at AFD. I have learned that disputes about Eastern Europe get very unpleasant, and I am just as glad we don't have that case. (It will be the problem of the hard-working admins at Arbitration Enforcement.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
A Non-Close
I extended the Do Not Archive date on the Shroud of Turin because it is going on, and we don't want it to be archived robotically. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
And again. The Shroud of Turin is one of the longest-running threads that I can recall. As long as progress is being made, which it is, and the moderator and the editors continue to work on it, that is good. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone care to comment on any other recent closes? On the two cases where there was argument about whether a song was a single or a promotional single, I didn't know any way to compromise, and sent them off to an RFC. I was disappointed that the discussion on corruption in Lithuania just sort of fizzled out, but that isn't uncommon. Fizzling out sometimes may mean that one of the editors had been angry and has calmed down, and that is all right. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
One-Against-Many
There seems to be a common idea that DRN is a good next stop in a one-against-many dispute. It may be if the one editor can persuade the other editors, but usually if that were possible it would have happened before the filing at DRN. It may also be a good next step if the one editor can persuade the moderator either to support them due to Wikipedia policies, or to abandon their neutrality, but if the moderator abandons neutrality, the other editors may back out of moderated discussion or request an alternate moderator, and it is rare although not unknown that one editor is right based on Wikipedia policy and everyone else is wrong.
Resolution to 'User talk:Diannaa#Copyright violation_on_Train_horn.'
@Robert McClenon: I want to object to the statement that implies I ignored a third party in the resolution to 'User talk:Diannaa#Copyright violation_on_Train_horn.'. Marchjuly posted several hours after I submitted my dispute request, not before it was submitted. (I do accept the overall outcome of the request, that Diannaa is correct, and do not in any way object to that conclusion.)--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 06:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
It is difficult to determine when comments were made when the posting party does not sign their posts. The posting party appears to be correct in the detail. It doesn't matter. The case is closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protection
Vanamonde93 has indefinitely semi-protected the page due to persistent vandalism, apparently by a sock. This means that the noticeboard cannot fulfill its mission of attempting to help disputes come to consensus if any major party to the dispute is an IP or non-autoconfirmed editor. A lot of the disputes filed here involve one or the other of those two classes of editor. Until that is lifted, all disputes involving an IP or non-autoconfirmed editor should be closed since the IP editor cannot participate and any result achieved here may well be meaningless. A referral to Third Opinion or RFC or, in those cases which are sufficiently complex to justify it, to MedCom should be made during that time. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@TransporterMan: I have not protected this page indefinitely. I protected it for 48 hours to prevent disruption, so the protection will expire automatically about 30 hours from now; and I would be willing to lift it even before then, if there's good reason to do so. Closing all requests involving editors who are not autoconfirmed seems quite excessive; no request is going to founder because of a 2-day delay. Vanamonde (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm confused. I see the expire date in the block log, but it also says "indefinite" at the end. (I don't deal with this much...) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
User:TransporterMan - The project page is indefinitely protected against being Moved, that is, renamed. Project pages such as noticeboards should be indefinitely protected against being moved or renamed. It was protected for 48 hours against being edited. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
User:TransporterMan - I requested that the project page be temporarily protected against unregistered editors because of disruptive editing of Vignette (road tax). The unregistered editors (and I have no idea how many there were because I didn't do a geographic lookup) were trying to use this noticeboard to !vote on their proposed change to the article (not for moderated discussion). If I shouldn't have requested the temporary semi-protection, then I will avoid making such a request in the future and will just hat disruptive comments from unregistered editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
No, that's fine if you requested it. This whole kerfuffle is due to my misreading of the protection tag. My bad and my apologies. Sheepishly, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Coordinator table
Hi everyone. As I was updating the current coordinator page today, I noticed that the table at the bottom of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Coordinator hasn't been updated in a few months. Could someone do that? Admittedly, I'm not too familiar with table syntax and someone else could probably do it much faster. Thanks. Biblio (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Strange. I had already added myself to the list of volunteers. Unfortunately, the operator of DRNClerkBot is retiring, so I'm not sure what to do if it's a bot problem. Biblio (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2018 (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.
@Biblioworm:, my entry on dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) was closed without action because of "insufficient discussion on the talk page". The other user does not engage in any discussion and keeps producing destructive edits. What to do if not DRN? Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that this was once a subject of arbitration. Earlier, I had advised Detektyw to take the matter to ANI. Biblio (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Either ANI or AE is a better place than DRN for a dispute where the parties can't explain concisely what they are quarreling about. Either ANI or AE might topic-ban both of them, which is probably what is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
In s post at AN3 I tried to summarize the admin history of this problem and the prior attempts at dispute resolution. The two participants, DzW and Ke an may be unaware that Wikipedia expects a more serious effort by editors who are in a dispute. And, it should be obvious that not everyone needs to fix every article. If you don't have the patience for a proper discussion, just let it go and work on something else. Both editors could ask User:Alexis Jazz for assistance in properly framing the discussion. Alexis commented on the talk page and said they were trying to 'guide this all a bit in the right direction'. They also filed the current AN3 report. EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Attribution of Lithuania to Eastern Europe is also disputable :). It depends on definition - if in terms of Cold War definition as a former part of Eastern Bloc, then - yes. But as a country which was occupied by USSR for 50 years it is still an object of Russian propaganda in traditional and social media and could be an object of battleground editing. From my point of view more clearly definition of a Wiki discussion is needed. If one side provides arguments and another - "you are not right", "laughable", "no, it is not" - it turns into something like a troll feed and could go endless. - Ke an (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
@Detektyw z Wilna: Please provide examples of disruptive editing. As for my arguments see Talk:Corruption in Lithuania#Neutrality. I got no contrarguments except statements such as "There is nothing of substance there, just a bunch of vague, unsubstantiated and plainly false accusations", "laughable". I'm ready for discussion, but I'm not ready for feeding the trolls. -- Ke an (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
DRNClerkBot operator departing
I am retiring from wikipedia, permanantly after repeated abuses of wikipolicy by many editors and admins. This means that DRN clerk bot will need a new operator. I'm more than happy to have someone usurp the account and start running the code at the program repository, but I am done with wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow response, I became a grandparent for the first time this week and things have been hectic in RL. I don't get into coding and bot issues, but I'm going to ping Mr. Stradivarius to see if he has a suggestion. Is there a place to request replacement bot operators, Hasteur? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I have created a new template, {{@DRNV}}. (It stands for DRN volunteer). It is modeled after MilHist's coordinator ping template, but pings all DRN volunteers instead. I think it could be useful when opening a case and asking if any volunteer is willing to take it. Biblio (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
There was a disruptive insertion in the Khalistan discussion that I had to remove. (I don't want to get into an argument about whether it was vandalism, but it was definitely disruptive.) Other volunteers are asked to be on the lookout for any disruption by IPs, and advised to revert them and warn the IPs. If there is repeated disruption by IPs, I will request semi-protection for one to three days, but that isn't necessary at this point. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
The DRN Form Needs a message to remind the filer about notifying the editors of dispute
I just did a small test and found that the DRN filling process, takes several steps and at no step during the filing process informs the filer about informing other editors with the template. @DRN volunteers: will agree that lot of filers forget to remind others. Looks like the clearly BOLD sentence is not doing its intended job. May I suggest adding that line that "reminds the filer to notify other editors" along with the subst template to be produced at the last step of filing where a DRN entry successfully filed prompt is given.--DBigXray20:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Best Known for IP
The report that I just closed was an encounter with the Best Known for IP, also known as the Best Known for Vandal. In the abstract, one can argue that any given edit by the IP, removing the phrase "best known for", is not vandalism, but is the removal of opinion. (I think that, in most particular cases, the IP would be right, except that their whole pattern of conduct is wrong.) However, the IP is disruptive, and has such a long-term pattern of abuse that they are treated as a vandal. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. I advised the reporter that this noticeboard doesn't deal with misconduct by a particular editor, and that the best approach is to revert the edits, request semi-protection of the page, and report the IP to WP:AIV, the vandalism noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The Human Rights in Israel discussion was robotically archived because the do-not-archive date had passed and there was no discussion in a period of time. I have restored it and changed the do-not-archive date. If the discussion is ongoing, please make sure that the do-not-archive date (which is initially two weeks from the filing) stays in the future. If the case is finished, please mark it finished so that it will be archived, but it looks ongoing. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to restore, Robert. Still showing up as "closed."
BTW, I tried adding to it earlier this week and each time I clicked on edit I got a totally different section.--NYCJosh (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused by this edit notice: Please do not continue to discuss disputes before a volunteer has opened a thread. If necessary, please continue to discuss on the article talk page. Don't continue to discuss but if necessary please continue to discuss? It's a puzzler for a first-timer! Perhaps it could use some copy edit or something explanatory added to the FAQ above. I don't know what "opening a thread" means, either, so not sure how long I'm supposed to wait or not wait, as the case may be. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Ditto. The sentence highlighted by Reidgreg should be reworded. The only mention of "thread" is right at the top of the page: "skip to newest thread", but that goes to something "filed by" an editor. Does that mean it's open? Is the "filed by" editor the required "volunteer"? Difficult-to-understand instructions don't make for a good start to a discussion. EddieHugh (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
"Please do not continue to discuss disputes on this page before a volunteer has opened a thread. If necessary, please continue to discuss on the disputed article's talk page."? DonIago (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I can't seem to find any discussion and I can't remember how we had been handling such. Some IP's are random and do not generate the same address and an IP could be a registered user not logged in. My gut tells me that IPs, having limited rights to that of a registered user, may be at a disadvantage in a more formal venue like mediation. IP's are generally brought up at ANI but generally for disruptive behavior. Does this, in some way, allow us to take IPs with content disputes in order to help keep IPs from becoming disruptive? I lean towards the last one but felt I better check.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Hey, Mark, good to hear from you. My position has always been that the policy of the noticeboard should be that so long as IP editors are allowed to edit Wikipedia, and absent a strong consensus of the DRN community to the contrary, that we ought to accept cases filed by or involving IP editors. So far, that's what we've done. On the flip side, changing dynamic IP's can make it hard to keep track of who you're dealing with, so I also feel that individual volunteers here can either decline (usually silently) to accept cases involving IP's or can (not silently) offer to "take" a case on the condition that the IP participants create an account, identify the IP addresses that they were previously editing from, and only edit logged-in. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with User:TransporterMan, but will add that, in my experience, some IP editors are stubborn or arrogant, and think that they have good reasons why they should be unregistered. In my experience, IPs who are advised to create accounts don't create accounts. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Large Numbers of Editors in Case Filings
I have a question about how many parties can be listed by a filing party in filing a case request at this noticeboard. lFirst, disputes with 6 or 8 or 10 parties listed are not uncommon. They usually turn out to be one-against-many disputes, where there is already a rough consensus against the filing party. The filing party either wants to continue to debate the merits of their minority position, or perhaps hopes that the moderator will adjudicate the merits of their position, or the filing party doesn't know what DRN is but sees that it is yet another stop to continue the bludgeon the process. Can we add something to the instructions for filers to the effect that this noticeboard is not likely to overturn an existing consensus, and that filing with a large number of parties is not likely to work (and might not find a volunteer moderator)?
Most recently we had a case, and I am asking the volunteers to take a quick look at it, in which the filing party listed 28 editors, all of the editors who had edited the page in question in a period of weeks. Initially the filing party said that they didn't know who to list and so just listed everyone. Again, should something be said to discourage such filings?
Changes to the page are repeatedly being undone and to me the reason is not good enough. People involved : mckhan, Lavender, mezzomezzo. Please have a look so wikipedia is not declared anti-ahbash. Samsparky (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Samsparky, the talk page for the dispute resolution noticeboard isn't the right forum for this request. Having looked at the page it's probably the Administrators' Noticeboard for Edit Warring that would be the correct venue. But a word of caution - a report there will likely include a review of your edit history on the page. Simonm223 (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
