Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 → Archive 25

Adding WP:DISCFAIL to Q13?

Anyone have any objections to my adding a link to the essay WP:DISCFAIL here? valereee (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Update

This isn't directly relevant to this forum. However, in case anyone is interested, User:Z07x10, who wanted to add a paragraph to the Eurofighter Typhoon that other editors did not want, has now been banned, among other things for conduct toward other editors that took on the nature of vandalism. This has nothing to do with how we do dispute resolution, except to point out that some editors who come here are very difficult, and there isn't always anything that we can do about them. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I wonder how helpful this "update" is actually; raising a thread which reiterates a specific editor who was banned and the reason he was banned. If the purpose of this thread was in fact to "point out that some editors who come here are very difficult, and there isn't always anything that we can do about them", I'd say the entire thread was unnecessary - as competent volunteers would expect that possibility anywhere in Wikipedia's DR system.
Having had this page on my watchlist since its creation, I know experienced DRN volunteers make a great effort in attempting to manage issues as they have arisen so far (and kudos for that), but the persistent theme on this page over the past month (that the message isn't clear) is not a good sign. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Ncmvocalist, Thanks for you comment. I agree the 'update' is inappropriate. However, I don't fully understand the last part your post.
the persistent theme on this page over the past month (that the message isn't clear) is not a good sign.
I'd like to understand your point but I'm not sure what your saying. Would you mind clarifying it a bit? Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Keithbob, my point is that a number of threads over the past month on this page could be taken as a reflection that there are many issues with DRN procedure and the way in which it is handling disputes, or alternatively, that perhaps Robert McClenon is not suited for DR on Wikipedia (if in fact he is suited for DR anywhere else). If it were a more general problem about the purpose of this step in dispute resolution or that this step is simply too complicated or difficult, we may need to review the usefulness of this step in DR. If it is an issue with a particular volunteer who quite clearly does not understand how this works and isn't getting the message after many responses from experienced volunteers, then perhaps conditions or restrictions should be considered as far as his participation in his capacity as a volunteer. If a particular volunteer is unnecessarily adding problems, handling matters poorly, or diverting limited resources, it does not assist in resolving the existing disputes which is actually what DR (and I would expect this noticeboard) exists for; continued participation by that editor may in those circumstances lead to more problems in one form or another. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
You just posted a rather serious accusation ("...a particular volunteer who quite clearly does not understand how this works and isn't getting the message after many responses from experienced volunteers"). Normally I would at this time ask for evidence in the form of diffs, but in this case I see no effort by you to discuss this with the DRN volunteer on his talk page, which is the normal first step when you have a dispute over user behavior. Did you do that and I just missed it? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict dispute

Hey all, would someone else mind taking a look at this dispute? I'd appreciate a different set of eyes on this one, and am not bothered at all if you come to different conclusions to the ones I have. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 09:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Steven Zhang Sir, thanks for showing big heart. warm regards. 115.186.146.225 (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Problem

Hello. I was watching documentary about 2pac called 'Tupac Uncensored and Uncut: The Lost Prison Tapes' and after reading Wiki page of 2pac. Did noticed that documentary wasn't mentioned so I added to page. JesseRafe erase it. When asked him (on his talk page) why, he reply that sounded made up. I did show him that documentary is real (http://www.amazon.com/Tupac-Uncensored-Uncut-Prison-Tapes/dp/B0042AHOPI) and write it again, he again erased it with comment that is "Unsourced". ALL OTHERS documentaries doesn't have sources but he erase just mine!? Why?!? Thank you Gsom7 (talk) 10:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: No effort was made to demonstrate its notability. It's not a documentary. It's one 44 minute (so not even a feature) interview, and was never commercially released. It's basically just a thing that someone had on tape and then tried to make money from. Calling it a documentary is an insult to reality television. Now I feel dumb for wasting my time looking into this when Gsom7 (upon whom all the burden of notability lies) did nothing to demonstrate its notability, and I knew from gut instinct and the silly title that it was just some BS fan-made collection of pre-existing pre-used already-well-seen archive footage. Hence why I called it "made up". Gsom7's defense that it wasn't "just made up" was that it was on YouTube. JesseRafe (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry folks but this is not the place to discuss disputes. You should be doing this on the article talk page. If, after significant discussion on the article talk page, the issue is not resolved you can seek some form of dispute resolution. One of the dispute resolution options is to file a case on this this notice board (but not this talk page). Thank you and good luck with your collaboration.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Sigh of Relief

Ah...... the board is down to four cases. Thanks to all who have been working hard to keep things moving these past weeks and months! Cheers! :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Aye aye, I've been watching it pretty closely. But I admit I'm a little disappointed by the lack of cases. I'm kind of bored...want something big and juicy to sink my teeth into. I mean, a challenge, I guess. I miss MedCab, I remember these cases and what a challenge they were, even if they were sometimes too big a fish to fry. I suppose I'll just have to wait for something to come along. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 11:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure that having the board down to four cases is good or bad. At least there aren't any badly filed cases waiting to be put down. (Look to RFM for a badly filed case waiting to be put down.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm back

Hey guys! After a very, very long hiatus I've decided to return to Wikipedia full-time, and especially help out around DRN once again. I'm glad to see that guys like TransporterMan, Keithbob, and others are still around and I'm very happy to collaborate and resolve disputes once again. I went on a short Wikibreak back in December of last year, which turned into a long Wikivacation up until now. Lots of stuff came up in life, a new girlfriend, fun legal issues, and a new job, so editing eventually went to the back of my head. Occasionally I'd read through DRN and AfD just to see how things were going. As a side note, thanks TMan for filling my role as co-ord next term, I don't feel two weeks or so is enough to fully get me up to speed and back into the habit of editing. Well, happy editing, and I hope to see you all around often! MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 18:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Moderator needed

The DRN moderator had a family emergency and has left his/her case. A replacement moderator is needed. User:Steven Zhang, you innerested? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I can, however will need to read and re-frame the discussion - the current format the thread is in does not suit my style. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 19:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Steve! I agree with you on the style issue. I also find that forcing participants to comment in their own special section is counterproductive and much too formal for our informal noticeboard. But to each his/her own. Whatever works.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I have been in the habit of having participants comment in their own sections in the past, and am now inclined to agree that it is often too formal (but not always). I do think that it helps to tell participants not to respond to each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
That's good Robert, I'm glad you are reconsidering that format. In my observations participants tend to comment in each other's sections anyway. Even when they are told not to because they want to have a discussion. That format is not used in Mediation to the best of my knowledge and it's only used (as far as I know) in Arbitration which is a presentation of evidence to a counsel of 10-15 members who issue a ruling on a long term behavioral issue(s). So I'm glad you are thinking to try the discussion format more here at DRN. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with y'all about the formatting, and will do that from now on. That being said, I'm very sorry about my absence and will try to return full time. Thanks to Steven for taking over. Kharkiv07 (T) 01:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Memories...and some new (or old?) thoughts

I was looking in my contributions today back when DRN was just an idea in its infancy in my head, and found some really old revisions - this one was the first time it had any sort of noticeboard structure. This was our first ever DRN thread, and @Ocaasi: was our first ever volunteer to comment on a discussion! :)

@TransporterMan:@Keithbob:@Guy Macon: (and others) - It's made me wonder if things are overly complicated at DRN nowadays. Now, it was rather simplistic back then and it did cause some disputes to get a bit out of hand, but I think getting back to basics on some of the aspects would be an idea - it's something I want to at least try. I think we could start by trimming down the header massively - I'm going to work on an alternative header (which will be at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Header/alt to see what you all think. I really would like to reintroduce the time since field in the case status template- the whole purpose of it was not for experienced volunteers, but for drive by volunteers that might think "oh crap, that case hasn't been touched by a volunteer for 3 days, maybe I can help" rather than a random looking number. @Hasteur:, how possible would this be to implement?

I think it's worth having a discussion about DRN since it's now been around for four years. Cases have been somewhat low lately, but with no MedCab anymore for quite some time, it makes me wonder where all the disputes are (i'd like to think there's a lot less disputes on WP nowadays but I think that's wishful thinking. And I think we can't be afraid of referring up - turning DRN into more of a small claims court, in a way, dealing with the little stuff, and handing anything significantly large/longer scale to MedCom. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 12:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Steve, You've made some suggestions for some significant changes at DRN. Changes that could have wide impact and will require significant discussion and consensus before implementation. For this reason I've created some subheadings and I hope that is OK. I'd like to make some general comments in response to your initial post. As background info I just want to say that I have been observing and participating at DRN about six days per week since the Fall of 2013. I don’t always make an edit but I check the DRN board and talk page every time I come on WP. I know T-man does the same. If we see something is amiss we step in to grease the wheels. Others experienced moderators also do this when they can. This provides some much needed continuity to the board.
  • DRN has proved to be a significant and practical addition to WPs dispute resolution system. I highly commend you for your insight and hard work. Getting the community to approve the implementation of a new format and procedure is no small task.
  • Right now DRN acts as a much needed middle ground between a 3rd opinion/RfC and Mediation/Arbitration. It works and I'm hesitant to overhaul something that isn't broken. I do feel however, like anything, it can be improved a step at a time. I (and I'm sure others) have ideas and suggestions if anyone wants to discuss them . But the problem with tweaking is that it usually means more nuance, more detail and more formality which is the opposite of what you are proposing.
  • If you really want more cases then you don't need to change the DRN header or procedures you just have to tell WP editors it exists. There are hundreds of disputes on hundreds of WP's talk pages at this very moment. If everyone on WP was informed about the role and existence of DRN, say via an email or a banner at the top of every WP page, we would see 100 cases filed over night.
  • But we can't handle 100 cases or even 20 because moderators come and go. Right now there are several new/active people but history shows that they lose interest and drift away and the cases keep rolling in. On several occasions I've seen cases sit for up to 2 weeks with all participants ready to go and no moderator. I've pinged former moderators and no one shows up. Because of the informal structure we have it is feast or famine here and the service participants receive ranges from quick to none and expert to annoying. I’m not getting down on anyone, just saying that is what you get with an open system where newbies and veterans drop in and out anytime they want to.
  • So generally speaking, I think DRN is already informal enough. Making it more informal, or more like the old days, is not going to fix anything and will likely create its own set of problems.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm sort of blown away here. To reply I'll need a little of time to analyse some data to formulate a reply. In a nutshell, I agree with your concerns regarding volunteer capacity - however at the (what I feel is the height of DRN's success, we had a successful case resolution of over 65% with 20 volunteers that month. I'm not sure where we are at with volunteers at the moment, but this was the DRN header] in use at the time. I'm not saying some of what's in the header isn't necessary. But I am thinking some simplification is in order - I'm currently looking at all cases from Archive 100 till now to get an idea of where we are at - but my initial assessment is that people either read the header, or they completely ignore it and file anyways. And there's a lot of content there - I think if I recall correctly when I was designing this when I was in the WMF office (as a fellow), a discussion came up about what people read at the top of a page, or something - hence the styling in the first version. But I understand the need to present data for this - I feel there are a few things we can try to help improve our successful resolution rate at DRN. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 19:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you are saying the points in the header are important but they could be reformatted to improve their effectiveness. I'm in agreement on that point. However, I think it would be prudent to make changes in a sandbox, refine the changes and get group consensus before implementation.............. Volunteer participation is a whole different discussion. We can discuss ways to improve participation and lower attrition but that is a WP wide issue that has been growing for years. WP has a volunteer crisis. We live in a fad culture. People try the new thing, get bored and move on (not to mention the gender/old boy's club issues). There are chronic backlogs in many areas of WP (ie copyright, new article creation, mergers, unreferencd BLPs etc. to name just a few). -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I feel that where my proposed changes are at the moment (at an /alt) is a sandbox? Have you had a chance to look at it? But yes, with volunteers, they come and go. The hope is if we make things look less "scary" more might be willing to give it a go. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 20:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Any format that isn't live would be fine. Do you have a link? I'd be happy to look. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Header/alt. @Keithbob:Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 00:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the DRN header

Note - I've made changes to the DRN header (in alt) and I've changed the DRN header for now (it can easily be changed back by removing the /alt I added - but I'd like to see if it has any impact on our cases or the environment - definitely welcome feedback and suggestions (and criticism) but I think with the header, less is more - as volunteers we're here to guide the discussion. Not sure if having tons of instructions in the header will do a ton of good more than us guiding the discussions when they go astray. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 12:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I think removal of the "rules" concerning (a) not a conduct forum, (b) pre-discussion being required, and (c) matter not being pending in another forum is a considerable mistake. (And formalisticly, those rules are only really set in the header.) None of those have been a point of controversy so far, so why change them? Also, I think that the idea that this is a quick-fix-or-refer forum never gained traction and the only way to enforce that, if it's going to be the case, is if there is an absolutely strict time limit on how long disputes may be discussed here. The archiving bot has been a mild form of that until now, but if we're really going to put it into play, we're going to have to have a strictly-enforced (probably by the Coordinator) rule that disputes which are X days old get closed no matter how productive the discussion is at the time. I've reverted back to the old header until we can talk about this more. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC) PS: Steve's proposed new header can now be seen at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Header/alt. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC) PPS: Another vital element removed in that proposal was the rules on removal of a volunteer due to editor objection. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Re: quck fix or refer -- is there a time limit? Because I'm sure everyone's noticed the Interstate Football discussion has been going on a while. Should I be referring this somewhere else? valereee (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Valereee, the way it currently works is that after a case has been listed for 14 days, the archiving bot will archive it and, in effect, involuntarily close the case unless either (a) there is at least one edit every 24 hours or (b) a volunteer moves the "do not archive until" date in the case header forward. Any volunteer can change the date, but the volunteer handling the case generally should be the one to do so and it generally shouldn't be moved at all unless there is steady, active, definite progress being made towards getting the case resolved but some reason to think that some progress won't be made every 24 hours. It ought not to be moved forward more than a week or so, since cases here ought to be either quickly heading towards resolution or failure after two weeks. (And it can always be moved forward again, if needed.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
TransporterMan, thanks -- there is little likelihood this discussion will make progress fast, as one of the disputants is only on wikipedia intermittently. He seems to be still interested in the discussion and willing to talk, though. But I can almost guarantee progress won't be measured in 24-hour increments. I'm not really confident this process will work for them, and I'm wondering if they need some place more formal. valereee (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The first two are in the header, just much briefer now - 1. "issues solely regarding the behaviour of other editors don't belong here. 2. "Remember - Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.". The third part should go in again, yes, forgot to include that. Regarding the volunteer objection, can we simplify it to just state they should go to the coordinator or talk page with the concern? Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 13:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I've made some changes per your suggestions. I'm off to bed - night. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 13:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Steve, You are discussing/justifying your changes in edits summaries[1] which is usually a sign that an editor is rushing and acting without group consensus. Can we revert the DRN page back to the original header and then discuss/make changes in a sandbox? I don't think you have consensus for any of the changes you've made so far. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree with User:Keithbob in that the changes being made have not been discussed enough and do not have consensus. I don't think that the header is broken, and I don't think that it needs to be fixed. User:Steven Zhang - Why do you think that the header or rules need to be tightened or loosened? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of DRN being quick-fix-or-refer in any hard-and-fast way. Some issues take a while, and I see no reason for them to be closed out if the moderator thinks that progress is being made. At the same time, moderators and participants should understand that most issues here should be fixed quickly or referred. Since we don't, for instance, have MedCab, there isn't really anything between WP:3O and WP:RFM except this, and I think that it should be a matter of judgment when and whether to push disputes from here to RFM. Maybe we should make it more clear that moderators can push cases to specialized noticeboards, but most of the cases here really don't fit at any specific specialized noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Good comments Robert. There is a need for general DRN advice, counseling and advisement especially amongst newbies. It would be nice if there was a place or format for that. It could even be a template similar to the way {{Adminhelp}} functions. But instead it would say {DRN assist} or something. Or there could be a page like WP:3O and volunteers could visit it and take one of the requests for DR advisement and then give a DR opinion on suggested next steps for the unresolved dispute on the article talk page. And/or the DRN volunteer could moderate the ongoing discussion on the talk page if there was a consensus on the talk page that invited the DRN volunteer to do so. The DRN volunteer would have no special authority and would simply leave if asked to or if the moderation was not productive. Also, like almost all DR venues the outcome would not be binding. I don't know if the community would approve such a thing but it's an idea and a way to provide a less formal DRN option to editors without breaking down what's already working here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The /alt header is a brand new page, completely separate from the current header so I'm not sure how I can revert it except for having it completely deleted (or I can move it to my userspace. To add to this - I would oppose closing off and referring elsewhere a dispute that had been making really solid progress, even if was open for two months, if the reason to do so was solely due to the lapse of time. I'm more talking for large scale disputes with multiple editors that after two weeks have really progressed nowhere. I feel those sort of disputes can clog up DRN (when I say clog, I mean take up the time of/burn out volunteers. One of the initial premises of DRN was that if a dispute is laid out on a noticeboard, it will have higher visibility and can be looked at by uninvolved editors who can attempt to help resolve the issue/s. The expectation here is that with many eyes and a reasonably lightweight discussion format, anything that can realistically be resolved here would have a shot. I'm not sure our current format is working though for larger disputes (some of the styles of discussion at DRN I feel are /too/ structured and haven't seen many bear fruit, so I am a little concerned. But, I understand that the days of me making a suggestion and the idea of trying it out to see if it has a positive impact are long over, and I need numbers to support my findings. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 19:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

OK - I've made a start by looking at a random archive page to give some overview of where things are at in a point in time (not much has changed format wise since then). I intend to go through a year's worth, this spans cases closed over two weeks. Archive100 had 16 cases. Out of those, one case was marked "resolved" - the dispute was a clear cut policy issue so the thread was closed for that reason. Two cases [2][3] were closed as failed, open for 22 and 27 days respectively, for both issues they appeared too complex for DRN (I mean, one was Gamergate, so to be fair in hindsight there wasn't much chance) or after extended discussion, compromise was not possible.

For the other 13 cases that were closed for general reasons:

  • 1 was closed as the dispute had been a misunderstanding and wasn't actually a dispute
  • 1 was an edit request
  • 1 was a request from a sockpuppet/block evader
  • 1 was withdrawn by the filing party
  • 4 were issues solely regarding user conduct
  • 5 were due to insufficient talk page discussion.

Now, this is a small sample and may not necessarialy be representative of all DRN archives (which is why I plan to do more digging) however I feel it supports my idea that with even a giant noticeboard header describing in detail what they can or cannot do, it has little impact. In this example over 60% of the cases at DRN were due to the instructions not being read. I think what we might need is more emphasis/a redesign of the request case template, to make it more of a wizard, which actually attempts to filter out the junk (e.g. Asks them what type of issue they have, whether it's about another editor, policy, etc) and stop/point them in the right direction if it doesn't meet the DRN criteria. And if the instructions in the header/templates are brief, I think it's more likely they will read it - I think it's fair to say it's not being read at the moment. I'm not suggesting change for the sake of change, but because I think how things are going at the moment aren't working so great, and I'd like to see what can. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 20:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

A very good point, Steve. I think many of us would agree that often the instructions/prerequisites for a case are not read or followed.
  • I would support a reformatting of the header to include bullets points or other graphic aids that would enable folks to get the gist of it at a glance. Also, the requirements could be listed in bullet points at the top of the request form and their could be a check box next to each requirement.
  • At the same time.......... most people show up at a point of desperation. They have an issue they can't resolve on the talk page and they are looking for advice, guidance and help. It's frustrating for them to have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get it. So we should be careful adding too much bureaucracy.
  • We need to decide who we are as a noticeboard. Are we DR advisers? Dispute discussion guides? Mini-mediation moderators? I don't think we can be all these things. We need to pick our sweet spot and then deliver a quality volunteer service.
  • Lastly, I would love to see a brief survey placed on all of the participants user pages from the last 50 cases that were actually moderated. We could ask them "On a scale of 1 to 10: How easy/comfortable was the DRN process? How helpful was it? How much of the dispute was resolved? How effective was the moderator? and finally.......How could we improve DRN?" That would have real value in telling us where we need to improve. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I would think having the header as simple as possible (like I've proposed) and having more in the actual request template, could be of use. People do come here when they are desperate - so at the moment, I think they probably come here, see the "request dispute resolution" button, then see the "yes, I have" regarding discussion and fill it in. If the request template was redesigned (which I'm going to attempt by re-coding it in userspace) we might be able to instead ask "what is your dispute about" with options such as "I disagree with others about the content of an article", "Another user is not behaving well", "I need help editing Wikipedia", "I have a question about a policy", "I have a dispute and am not sure where it should go", with the first option creating a thread, options 2, 3, and 4 stopping the process and pointing them to alternative places, and 5 could be a shorter form where they describe their issue and we recommend it be posted to X forum.
  • We could certainly do a survey - however the last 50 cases might be too small a sample (in 2011 I did a survey on all who had contributed more than X amount of edits to DR over the course of 2 years, responses were about 300/10%. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 20:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Those are good suggestions and yes if compliance is only 10% then 50 is much too small a sample size. Yes, I saw the DR survey and its excellent information for DR as a whole but twould be nice to see some specifics for DRN alone to know what the experience is here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed changes to case status template

@Steven Zhang: Someone else recently asked me about making this change as well, so I dug up what I did. I've reached in and manually edited {{DRN case status}} in this change. If there is consensus to go ahead, I can change the clerkbot's implementation to add the {{time ago}} template around the time posts. Hasteur (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
It was me as well? I guess it's more from my memory with the original implementation, the original bot actually had that format and it was changed away from it (and I can't see/find the discussion where the change was decided) - with the old bot,it seemed to do it (date format) without the template automatically some how see here to give the days and hours, rather than just days (or hours). Any idea if that's possible to implement (if at all?). Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 14:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Steve and Hasteur, There have been a number of group discussions here and at related talk pages during the past year or so regarding changes to the case status template. It took a lot of time to come to a consensus and to get someone to make changes for us. Please don't change or revert anything in any of the templates without first discussing it here and getting a clear consensus from the DRN moderator community. Many thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello Keithbob - I actually searched through the archives and could not find any discussion where it was decided to remove the timestamp from the case status template (I did notice discussions where some of the case status templates were deprecated, but I am not suggesting those be changed. I'm suggesting this be implemented not on a whim, but because I can't find any discussion where it was decided to use a raw timestamp as opposed to what the DRN bot as originally designed did. Do you mind pointing me to the discussion? Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 18:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
@Steven Zhang: (of 14:39, 14 July 2015): I believe the reason I changed it from the relative timestamps (always) to the timestamps that are fixed was so that the bot wasn't updating the template every 30 minutes when really there was no change to the underlying discussion (i.e. The bot updating the age of all discussions when nothing had happened in any of the cases to warrant the template being updated). This would be against the spirit of WP:COSMETICBOT in that we would be generating revisions for no real good reason If the users of the template (DRN volunteers and DRN disputants) can't look at the "This template last updated at X by Y" and then add however much time is necessary between when the template was updated and now, then that is more a PEBKAC issue that is handled in WP:CIR. What I could do is force the bot to always execute a save (regardless of if there is any substantial change) so that every 30 minutes the bot force saves the template so the sliding timestamps automatically refresh without polluting the page history with unnecessary revisions that aren't useful. Hasteur (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi there - and I agree that every 30 minutes is unnecessary. How would that suggestion you make work - can/does it present the time in days&hours (or is that possible?) Alternatively, could we have a middle ground, say, so the rule is that if DRN is changed, it updates the whole template on the 30 minute mark (so, if only one DRN thread was changed, it would still update the last edited columns of cases that haven't changed), with the bot doing an edit with no DRN updates say if DRN is edited by no one in 4 hours? I feel this would be a good balance between cosmetic changes and keeping volunteers up to date. The frequency of updates doesn't really bother me as much as having that presented in a way that someone at a cursory glance can look at. It's on my talk page because in the old format, I can look at it and go "oh crap, X thread hasn't been looked at by a volunteer for 2 days - I need to look at that, versus trying to compare two different timestamps. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 01:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Hrm... Time ago kinda works but it doesn't really provide the functionality as it rounds down the date/time. I'm going to try my hand at forking Module:TimeAgo to provide the functionality we need. Hasteur (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that's really appreciated. :) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 01:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Just noticed it's a lua template...hrm...not familiar with those... Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 01:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
@Steven Zhang: I set up test cases after forking the Time Ago module. The only concern I have with something like this is it's going to make a lot of horizontal space in the view version of the page. Thoughts? Hasteur (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, I capped the coalesed units at weeks as I figure if we don't have a request solved in under a month, there's something underlying the problem. Thoughts? Hasteur (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks good - however is it possible to limit it to just days and hours, and round up - e.g. 4 hours, 2 days 7 hours, 14 days 3 hours? I think this might solve the horizontal space issue too? Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 03:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind, I had a bit of a play, and got it I think to a state that works [4] though the perfectionist in me would love it to render a comment between days and hours if it exists, but I'm not phased :) and done - sorry for clogging up your watchlist :) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 04:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Steven, there were significant discussions on a related tech changes noticeboard as well. User:Guy Macon was sort of the lead person on this maybe he can point us to the prior discussions about modifying the case status template. I believe prior changes were mainly about case status but maybe Guy could clarify that for us. Personally I never use the time stamp feature as its awkward for the reasons you've stated. Thanks for looking into ways to improve it.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussions I saw were around the case status template only (as in, new, in progress, resolved etc). Do you think the timestamp solution is now workable? Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 20:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
My suggestion, and others may not agree, is to remove the time stamp and just have the date stamp only.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Mmm, I'm not sure if I agree. If we have a date only, I see the main issue with this is that the template might not have the appearance of updating/changes made to it for 24 hours, so the effectiveness as a tool for volunteers to keep track of and/or step in to disputes that are getting out of control/abandoned by another volunteer, is diminished. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 00:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
So, where is this at? It was asked that I discuss these changes at the talk page but discussion has died out. Can this change to the status overview template be implemented? Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 00:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Steven Zhang I'm reading a 1 and 1 consensus between you and Keithbob (which in my mind evaluates as no consensus to implement). As such I am uncomfortable doing this (as I've been taken to task by ArbCom and BAG for exceeding the mandate). Can you (SZ) please whip up some more active debate so that there is a clearer consensus to implement (or not). Hasteur (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
It would be good to have input from a few others like User:Guy Macon, User:TransporterMan, User:Robert McClenon and others. That said I am not opposing the change just not clear at this point what the change is. Is this how it will look? Is it possible to just have the date and the hours since last activity without the 23:59:00 UTC ?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I have an opinion about this, either pro or con, at this point. I'd like to see a mockup of the entire template with the proposed change, but I may well still not have an opinion afterwards, either. If I had a gun to my head, I think I'd probably say that I'm okay with the change, which translates to a very, very weak support, but not really an advocate or opponent of it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
What is the question? Is it whether to include the number of days in the case status template? Number of days from when? When the case was opened? If so, that is useful either to see that the case is languishing without a moderator, or how old a case that has been running a long time is. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Random break in the thread

Keithbob Take a look at the sandbox to see an A|B comparison. Hasteur (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me like a useful addition. I also note that we don't have any open cases, several closed cases and one waiting for a moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the mockup Hasteur! Yes I support this change in time format. It is a great improvement.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@Hasteur: - do you feel there is sufficient consensus to make this change now? Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 01:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I feel there is now consensus. I'll make the on wiki changes immediately, and make the bot changes later on today (tomorrow) as I prefer not to do my bot coding from work. Hasteur (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Template moved, Module changed, test case page changed. Bot coding will be done later today. Hasteur (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Previous Discussion on Talk Page Question

A case has just been opened. There has been edit-warring, and the discussion on the talk page has been profoundly uncivil. There is a content dispute. Do we accept the case, knowing that it may not be easy for the moderator to keep the parties being civil and working productively? Also, I will not be taking the case. Would it be either unwise or out of line for me to go to the talk page and caution both editors? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

As DRN volunteers we have no special authority or role in the community. We are not admins or civility police. Our only authority is in controlling the format of the content discussions we accept here at DRN. So my suggestion would be to do nothing and let the person who is going to accept the case decide what they need to do to frame the content discussion for maximum chance of success. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Robert, you state as a premise that "there is also a content dispute," so what I'm about to say is somewhat outside the scope of your question, but worth, I think, noting. It's perfectly legitimate to disregard all the conduct discussion on the article talk page and then only look at what's left to determine whether or not there has actually been extensive discussion on the content issue separate and apart from the conduct issue. In many cases there's not and if there's not, then the case should be closed here for lack of adequate discussion even if there's been acres of conduct discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I see that in this case the thread was closed because one of the editors did not want to discuss. My next question is whether a DRN volunteer who doesn't choose to moderate a case may reasonably take part in discussion on the talk page, or, if the case is opened here, may reasonably take part in discussion here (not as the moderator). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, in either case, but by doing so you become a party and ought to list yourself as such in the party list here and take part in the discussion here as a party. It doesn't hurt to say something like, "I sometimes volunteer here at DRN, but in this case I'm not acting as a DRN volunteer, but just as another party to this dispute." You can always choose to be a regular editor or be a volunteer, but you shouldn't do both or to switch back and forth in the same dispute (or on the same article). (This may not be what you're thinking about, but you also shouldn't try to do independent mediation or other DR at the article page while that dispute is pending here, of course; if that's what you want to do, you should propose it here and if the parties agree for you to do it then close the listing here in favor of your efforts at the article talk page. Doing so, however, forfeits the benefits of the control of mediation policy which expressly says that mediation under that policy can't be done on the article talk page.) Those are the general principles, but there can be a lot of variation pro and con in particular circumstances. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. To clarify, my question was answered straightforwardly, which is that I was asking permission to take part in a discussion as an editor rather than as a mediator, and the answer is that I have that permission but should add myself to the party list. I agree that discussion on the article talk page while mediation is in progress should be discouraged. I can see that the only time that it would be useful to go to the article talk page is if DRN is declined for any reason. I also understand that this has to do only with DRN and not with 3O, which is less formal and less structured, and not with formal mediation, which is very formal and structured. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
It can also apply at 3O. You can choose to give an opinion under 3O, which imposes certain obligations on you, or you can just weigh in as an editor and leave the request pending on the 3O page. Weighing in may (and should) then be regarded by another 3O'er as a 3O, who removes the request because a 3O has been given. But by not coming in under 3O you don't have to be neutral, which means that you are free to advocate an opinionated position or be particularly pushy which you might not do with a need to be neutral. I've done that a number of times. I usually start those with something like, "I'm a regular volunteer at 3O and I saw this listed there, but this is not a 3O given under that project. I'm taking off my Third Opinion Wikipedian hat and chiming in here just as another regular editor. I've left this listed at 3O, but some other volunteer will probably remove this because a 3O has already been given. Having said that, yadda, yadda, yadda." Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I have found that when mediating DRN cases it is often useful to make a point of not taking sides or expressing my personal views on the content dispute. Even when it seems clear that one side is following the sources and the other isn't, explaining our policies about reliable sources and asking each side to list their best source can bring the side with no reliable sources to a realization that they have a weak case, whereas me simple telling them at the start that they have a weak case tends to cause them to dig in their heels. For new users Wikipedia can feel like a bunch of people ganging up on you while spouting obscure acronyms like WP:V and WP:RS.
Of course each case is different (so sometimes I can't do as I described above) and each volunteer has a different style, but we should all consider exaggerated neutrality as an option. It helps when you take cases where the actual content dispute is rather boring to you rather than cases where you are tempted to be an advocate for ones side or the other.
Has everybody here read WP:1AM? I have had good results with asking the participants in DRN cases to read that essay. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I like the essay but not the shortcut. In looking at the shortcut, I assume it is advice not to edit at 0100 local time when you are tired and should go to bed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
There is always WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY... (smile) --Guy Macon (talk) 06:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If there's going to be ongoing discussion, it's also important when things are affected by policy to quote and explain the policy, not just point them to it. Once you've done that, then you can ask them to explain how their desired edit fits into what the policy actually says and once they've done that then question, critique, or as applicable, cross-examine what they said. Though I sometimes don't do it, the Socratic method of asking questions rather than making statements is often the best method to use to work through a case, provided that you're willing to require the parties to answer your questions and not sidestep or go off on rants or tangents instead. A powerful tool used by attorneys after such a side step is to just ask the question again: "That's all very interesting, but it doesn't really address my question. My question was [repeat the question]. Could you answer that question, please?" And if they still don't answer, just keep asking it and openly or silently declining to move on until they answer it. It helps if at the beginning of the mediation you say something like "I'm going to conduct this discussion mainly by asking questions about your positions. I won't ask any questions about conduct or about you, personally, only about content, your position on content, and your reasons for your position. Do I have your agreement that you'll answer the questions I ask?" Finally, I agree entirely with Guy that we need to be aware of our own topical prejudices — and we all have them — and avoid those cases. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Excellent insights from wise and experienced DR editors. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Status for Closing Cases

I can't seem to find the guidance for volunteers as to how to decide whether to close cases as Resolved, General Close, or Failed. Can someone point me to it? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The reason I ask is that I see that one case was just closed as Resolved on policy grounds rather than because the editors agreed. One editor was removing unsourced material from a BLP, and the other editor was restoring it, and it was closed as Resolved on policy grounds that contested unsourced material must be removed. I agree, but I didn't know that policy was sufficient for closing a case as Resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I had a similar case a few months ago. One editor wanted to have an article consist largely of external links, because he said that external links were more stable and more reliable than internal links. (He also claimed that, due to deletions, a considerable amount of article content had been forever lost and could not be recovered. I didn't see evidence backing up that claim.) I pointed out the policy to him, and suggested that, if he wanted to do something contrary to policy, he could either submit an RFC with regard to the specific article, or he could submit an RFC to change the policy and permit external links in articles. Then he didn't respond in three days, and I did a General Close. Should I have done a Resolved close on policy grounds? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Steve's not going to like this answer, but the fact is that how you close it is largely irrelevant except for keeping statistics which — and this is the part Steve's not going to like — we gave up on a long time ago. I could have closed the case which you are talking about in your second point above either as a general close (on the basis that there was no viable dispute) or as I did as a resolution (because the proper result was mandated by policy). (Though I would suggest that if you are going to close it as a clear policy result — however you tag it — you need to be extremely sure of both what the policy says and how it applies to the facts of the situation in dispute.) In many cases, whether a case has failed, generally closed, or been resolved is in the eye of the volunteer. If I close a case after there's been some inconclusive discussion to refer it to MEDCOM or RFC, for example, I can characterize it as a failure (we didn't get it settled here at DRN), as a general close (we're closing the case simply because nothing else is going to happen here), or as a resolution (we've resolved the matter here at DRN by referring it [and that's particularly true if the parties have kinda/sorta/entirely agreed to the referral]). The same is true where we have a case which has multiple issues and we've resolved some but not all and the parties are still at war. Because of this kind of imprecision, the resolution tags are never going to be entirely consistent from volunteer to volunteer and attempting to create a set of standards and make volunteers use them would be, in my opinion, fruitless, continuously frustrating, and yet another set of complication to discourage new volunteers (which is one of the reasons that keeping statistics doesn't work all that well). In closing cases, the fact of the close is more important than the label put on it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
You say that the fact of the close is more important than the label put on it. Am I correct that that means that the closing volunteer has a duty to state as clearly as possible in the closing comments exactly what the close was? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
In that case, I won't worry much about what disposition to use if most of us have already given up on getting statistics. Maybe if we want statistics, we need to rework how to get the statistics. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I definitely agree with all of TMan's statements; we gave up on stats a while ago (in fact I think only Steve did them for a while) and the type of closure tag varies from volunteer to volunteer. Of course, yes, the volunteer should generally clearly state his or her closing rationale so all parties understand why the case was closed and if there are any further possible steps to take in the dispute (such as an RfC). Now, I think the general consensus here is that statistics are mostly useless and are only for record-keeping purposes. As long as all of the volunteers are happy with their job, and we are efficiently and swiftly taking care of disputes with our best efforts, then statistics are nothing to worry about. Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 19:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
P.S. Rob, you could take a look at this guide also. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 19:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I had read that once before. It mentions general close primarily for pre-emptive closes. However, many cases are general-closed after some discussion, such as if an RFC is published. By the way, I changed WP:Meditation to WP:Mediation, and it didn't matter, because the misspelling has a redirect. (In article space, a redirection would be incorrect, because both Mediation and Meditation are valid topics, but Wikipedia is unlikely to have a policy on meditation. However, occasionally an angry editor might reasonably be told to meditate.) As you say, the metrics are probably not useful because the distinctions between the three types of closes are not hard-and-fast.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Dictatorship of the Proletariat

The dispute isn't showing up in the chart at the top of the page. Yes, I did try purging the cache. Bot problem? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

As a note, the bot hasn't updated any case stauses since 4am server time. As another note, it is Hasteur who operates the bot. Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 22:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Robert McClenon and MrScorch6200 The case status template was missing, which caused the bot to die. Hasteur (talk) 04:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. It appears that the case status template was missing because the case may have filed manually rather than through the interface. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I am willing to accept it, but only if I am allowed to say that it has a time limit of ten days, and that, if it is still going on, I will request that it go for Formal Mediation. It appears that some of the editors don't want to discuss, and they don't have to discuss. Can I open a case without them, or should the case be declined? Should I accept, or should we decline? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Having not gotten an answer, I went ahead and opened. Fortunately, so far, only two editors are participating, which is an easier mediation than with a lot of editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for Another Look

Can another volunteer please take a look at this discussion? It doesn't involve a lot of IP addresses after all. However, I would like someone to advise whether I am becoming non-neutral (not good) or whether I am simply insisting that Wikipedia present its own voice in a neutral point of view (required). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 16:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

DNAU changes

Hasteur and Steven Zhang, you know about these things: The do not archive until header has two components, for example:

Component 1: [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 21:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Component 2: {{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1438549950}}

This header is, I believe, created by our listing template's utilization of Template:Do not archive until aka {{subst:DNAU|14}}. Here's my question: Does extending the date in Component 1, alone, extend the DNAU date or does the number in Component 2 — in the above example, 1438549950 – also have to be changed in order to achieve that extension of time? Or since we use MiszaBot for archiving, rather than ClueBot III, is Component 2 only relevant for those who use ClueBot III for archiving? Finally, if it must be adjusted how do we do it? I think that changing the date in Component 1 has been sufficient in the past, but frankly now I've looked at it more closely I've begun to doubt my observations. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

TransporterMan First our case page is archived by Lowercase sigmabot III operated by Σ. If I'm reading the source code published (at User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Source.py) the bot uses a sneaky-clever behavior where the post dated signature line (i.e. Component 1) that has the magical series of characters of "2 numbers followed by a : followd by 2 numbers, followed by a comma, followed by a space, followed by 1 or two numbers, followed by a space, followed by zero or more Alphabetical characters, followed by 4 numbers, ...." will push the thread's eligibility out to that date. Component 2 is not necessary to be changed in order for the archiving to happen at a specific time. Not really wild about the way the do not archive directive gets processed because someone could craft the string of characters so that we have somthing that lasts ungodly long as part of the discussion. Short of forking LS3 (which will have a really difficult time getting passed by BRFA) to patch this hole, I think we'll be ok. Hopefully Σ will take this under advisment and look at tightening up the STAMP_RE regex. Hasteur (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see a problem. Can you clarify exactly what you want fixed? →Σσς. (Sigma) 18:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Σ I want a explicit call out for the DNAU signature parsing seperate from the regular signature parsing so that there's a clear deliniation between the DNAU being the reason why a thread isn't archiving and an unintended consequence (like someone sticking a string of caracters in that isn't being displayed with a year 2100 signature date) Hasteur (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's not on my agenda at the moment as it doesn't appear to be a real problem. My advice is to make sure that people aren't "unintentionally" adding or changing timestamps to be a hundred years in the future. →Σσς. (Sigma) 01:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Hasteur. That clears it up at least for our general purposes. The main vulnerability of the magical string of characters seems to me to be that the hour always has to be two characters, so if a volunteer decides to change it from, say 17:04 to 8:04 it has to be written 08:04 not just 8:04. That's not too much of a risk, however, since most people just change the date and leave the time alone. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Moderator needed

The discussion at WP:DRN#Talk:Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry#Honours Count? is still an active dispute and needs a moderator. It's been over seven days and there's been no moderated discussion. Regards, Scorch (talk | ctrb) 00:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I've got a fair bit on this evening, but I'll take a look at it later tonight if it's still not been picked up by anyone. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 09:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Just a note, looks like North of Eden has picked the case up. Thanks! Scorch (talk | ctrb) 05:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC Neutrality Question

I have a question. I closed a thread by posting a neutral RFC as to which of two image montages to use in the infobox. I have an opinion as to which should be used. May I !vote on it now that the thread is closed, or would that compromise my neutrality? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

My recommendation would be that you step back to avoid the appearance of impropriety. DonIago (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Joining in the dispute as a partisan once you're done stuff as a neutral party just makes your actions as a neutral appear to be suspect. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay. A lot of the time, one editor keeps on pinging me for help after I have closed the thread, probably because either they feel that neutrality is good or because they think that they are right, and I typically advise them as to Wikipedia policy, such as how RFCs work. I didn't !vote and won't. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Zindagi

I have marked this thread as stale, needing either a moderator or closure. One editor appears to have declined to participate. If, as it appears, his edits are the subject in controversy, then this thread should be closed, and the other parties advised to pursue Request for Comments if they still have a content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I posted a 24 hour closing notice in the (very forseeable) event that two listed parties fail to participate. North of Eden (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I see that you mean the two listed parties who have not responded so far, other than the filing party and one party who declined to participate. By the way, there is a thread at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry!

I dropped off the radar for a few days - have been obscenely busy at work. Back now :) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 12:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Placed on Hold

I see that a case has a status of "This request has been placed on hold". I had never seen that status before. When should it be used? Is it by request of the parties, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

It's really never been used, I think I'm the only one that does use it. The new bot doesn't even update the case status to "9" in the header - "9" is "on hold", which also turns the case to a yellow color. I only ever use it when an editor is away for an extended period of time and it would still be helpful to continue discussion when they return. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 05:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I was not aware of this status option either. If we are going to use it we should put a section in the DRN volunteer guide that explains its usage.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
We can add it over here. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 21:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The description of General Close doesn't include some ways that we use it. It only includes a case that was closed as unsuitable for DRN, such as prematurely filed or a conduct dispute. We also include it for various types of neither success nor failure closures after moderation. Should we amend the description, or should we create another closure status? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
What would be an example of using the General Close after an attempt has been made to moderate?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The moderation resulted in the publishing of a Request for Comments. That isn't a resolution and it isn't a failure. I once closed such a thread as Resolved, and it was changed to a General Close. Since then, I have closed those threads as General Close. It isn't a resolution because, first, the content hasn't been agreed on, but sent to the community, and, second, there is no guarantee that the participants will be satisfied, only that the RFC is binding. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Then General Close just becomes a catch all category that has absolutely no meaning. I'd be in favor of adding a new closure category called Partial Resolution. It is very, very rare that a dispute is 100% resolved. A Partial Resolution close would be uplifting for both participants and volunteers. Their efforts should be recognized.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I like the Partial Resolution idea. The criteria could be something like, "If parties have reached a mutual agreement on some, but not all, issues in contention, or if they have agreed to continue discussion in another forum, a Partial Resolution close may be used." North of Eden (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet abuse of DRN

Cityside189, a party to the Regnerus case, has been has been blocked per this discussion as a sockpuppet of The Editor of All Things Wikipedia. It looks as though we had a volunteer attempting to resolve a dispute to which s/he was also a party. I think the Regnerus thread maybe should be closed, as Cityside brought the dispute in the first place. I won't be volunteering in that thread due to my involvement in the SPI and AN/I discussions. Thanks, North of Eden (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It is the usual practice to close a case if the filing party is blocked, especially if the filing party is blocked as a sockpuppet. (If the filing party is blocked for edit-warring, the case is sometimes re-opened after they come off block, because moderated dispute resolution is a good substitute for continued editing-warring.) I have boldly closed the case. This case was weird because of the details, but it doesn't change the fact that the filing party has been blocked as a sockpuppet, and the usual practice then is to close the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hello @North of Eden: All the editors except Roscelese have made their point on why they oppose Cityside189. I don't think there is a problem with bias in closing the case where the filer (whom all of the included parties oppose) has been indef blocked. To be perfectly neutral, I'd suggest any volunteer to ask opinions from all the remaining parties if they have any objection in closing the thread and close the thread after 24 hours if no objection arises (of course they may file a new case). Regards--JAaron95 Talk 17:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense; thanks for closing it. North of Eden (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: That's a good call! Cheers--JAaron95 Talk 17:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

General checkup

Hello! Hope this isn't burdensome, but I was wondering if some of the more experienced volunteers could offer some feedback on how I'm doing moderating discussions. I've been working on two so far (the Manchester/Liverpool football one and the Democratic primary map dispute) and I'm interested in what others think of my style and general effectiveness. Any thoughts/critiques/recommendations are highly welcome, as I hope to continue helping out frequently and want to know how I can be most effective. Thanks! North of Eden (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that you did well on the football rivalry case, which was tedious and never could be resolved. I would have recommended an RFC rather than formal mediation, but that just illustrates that I usually recommend an RFC as the way out of intractable disputes. As to the primary map, it does appear to be an interminable case, and you have shown patience. It may also have to be closed. In that case, with complex issues about multiple shading, I actually think that formal mediation should be the next step. Thank you for your patience. User:TransporterMan? User:Keithbob? User:Hasteur? User:Steven Zhang? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
On just a first-impression basis I agree with Robert, but I'll try to take a closer look sometime this week. The decision whether to recommend RFC or MEDCOM is a subtle one, but one primary factor is participation. At MEDCOM we (I'm a member of that committee) have to have at least a majority agree to mediation for the case to be accepted. After a long discussion here, sometimes people are too weary to agree to that. One of the good things about RFC is that you either have to participate or be ignored. Best regards and thanks for your help, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon and TransporterMan: Thanks for your feedback. As we near the end of the Dem primary case, I will review your suggestions again before suggesting a next step. North of Eden (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
North, I just looked at the football case and I thought that you did a heck of a good job with what was a very difficult case at best. You kept making good suggestions and reaching for consensus which was great. The only thing I saw that I might caution you about was a suggestion at one point that the major/minor issue be referred to a wiki-project. Remember that projects have no authority to set policy or guidelines unless they go through the policymaking process set out in the Policy policy (not a typo) and that any standards that they adopt are merely suggestions. On the other hand, they might be of value in drawing in additional editors to help reach consensus, so it wasn't a bad suggestion, just one you need to be careful with. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It was bound to happen sooner or later...

We now have a DRN volunteer who has a grand total of three days experience editing Wikipedia. [5] (He also says on his user page that he is a Teahouse Host, Third Opinion Noticeboard volunteer, and Recent Changes Officer). Time to set some minimum qualifications? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I too thought of that.. Think I'm too new to DRN to voice my opinion. Will leave it to others. Regards--JAaron95 Talk 10:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I encouraged the editor in question, as nicely I could, to turn his attention away from DRN until he increases his content editing history and understanding of policy. North of Eden (talk) 11:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

In the event of setting up minimum qualifications (before I'm settled here), I'll put myself into test under those requisites. Regards--JAaron95 Talk 12:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how common issues like this are, but I think they're best handled subjectively as opposed to a minimum-requirements policy. It's pretty clear when an editor is not a good fit for DRN, as in this case. North of Eden (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
We could, at a minimum, use the usual 30 days and 500 edits rule, but in general it is a judgment call. Didn't we also recently have an editor who wanted to volunteer to be a formal mediator, who was advised to build up a record at third opinion and then come here to DRN before asking to be a formal mediator? In this case, I see that two editors have asked him or her to stop trying to help out at DRN. I think that what is needed more than a rule is common sense, and the other editors are asking that common sense be shown. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
This is actually a recurring problem, not a new one. When we first set up DRN we considered a minimum-experience requirement (I was a primary advocate for it and thought 3,500-5,000 edits should be the suggested standard — suggested because we have no real way to enforce it). All you can do is to do what Robert has suggested: point them to 3O, speak strongly but nicely to them, and just wait for them to frustrate out if they persist. I suppose that we could, in theory, ask for a topic ban if they're bad enough but I'm not at all sure how that would go over. One of our other founders, Mr. Stradivarius has moved on to being a highly-respected admin and I'm pinging him to see what he thinks. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
After thinking about it, I agree with pretty much all of the above.. A brand new editor with the right attitude and a bit of help from others who are more familiar with Wikipedia's rules could be a great DRN volunteer.
The webpage Five Geek Social Fallacies, especially Geek Social Fallacy #1, may be helpful in thinking about this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The user at question has taken up the last case, would it still be appropriate for him to moderate the case? Regards--JAaron95 Talk 15:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
My thoughts on this are closely aligned with Guy's - while having a low edit count is an indicator that a user may not be ready to mediate discussions, it doesn't necessarily mean that they will be bad at it. I seem to remember one user (I forget their username) who tried their hand at volunteering at DRN with just a few hundred edits, and was actually rather good at it. It might also be the case that users make edits as an IP for years, and only register an account later, meaning that their edit count doesn't reflect their actual level of experience. I would say that unless we are regularly having problems with new users mediating, then we can probably deal with things like this on a case-by-case basis, probably by talking with users on their talk pages. I haven't been keeping an eye on DRN recently, though, so I don't know if this has become a common problem. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Strad. What I actually pinged you for was whether you thought that a newcomer might get blocked at ANI if they were doing a really bad job here and persisted in it after being given some gentle suggestions to either improve or leave. The current case at ANI, linked by Guy Mason just below, seems like it may well answer that with at least a "yes, it's at least possible" though the difference there could be that the subject of that case has not limited his activities just to DRN. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, topic bans and blocks would be possible for people who really don't get the message - that would fall under Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. I've seen WP:COMPETENCE cited fairly often as reasons for blocks or bans, which I think sums up the problems here quite nicely. (Also, I see that User:The Editor of All Things Wikipedia has just been indefinitely blocked, which gives us a definitive answer for the case at hand.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 17:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Looking over all of the weird things that the editor has done, I have recommended a block in order to get time to reason with him or her. The editor appears to be dangerously enthusiastic. Occasionally enthusiasm, not tempered by judgment, is dangerous. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll leave it to the regulars here to establish if there should be firm guidelines for pitching in here, but just FYI I have proposed some condtions for this specific user at the related ANI thread and I think it would certainly be a good idea if a more experineced user at least reviewed the thread they are attempting to deal with. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Would anyone object to a policy that only autoconfirmed editors can be DRN volunteers? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
No. I don't think a registered editor would be able to moderate discussions. Regards--JAaron95 Talk 17:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that there is a typo there. I think that a requirement that only autoconfirmed editors can volunteer is in order but too lenient. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
No objection from me. North of Eden (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that autoconfirmed status should be a minimum requirement for DRN volunteer work.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
The real problem here isn't typically the editor who's not autoconfirmed but the one who is generally inexperienced. Adopting an autoconfirmed status says, by implication, that that's enough and I'd hate to see that thrown back in our face when we've got a guy trying to be a volunteer who has 350 edits but they've all been on Bodmin Friary or My Little Pony, but none at any forums or 3O or ANI or other places that you learn about policy and practices. That's the reason I've long been an advocate for a relatively high recommended number of edits: once you get to 3,500 or 5,000 edits, its still possible you've not been through the mill a few times, but not likely. On the other hand we get few enough volunteers as it is and I hate to put up even that barrier to participation. I wonder if an alternative solution might not be to put something in our volunteering page that says autoconfirmation is the absolute minimum requirement but that while experience isn't specifically needed competence is required and that volunteers who fail to quickly demonstrate competence may be asked by the community to not take cases or to get some experience at 3O before continuing? Finally, the Wikipedia community has always been highly suspicious of groups with defined and/or limited memberships and/or the ability to include or exclude editors, see Association of Members' Advocates and Esperanza, and I'm wondering whether, if we're going to consider something like that, if we might not be best served by at least developing a proposal and floating it at the Village Pump or via an RFC to get reaction to it before adopting it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Added underlined words to make the first sentence make sense... — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
My suggestion would be, an RFC for all possible solutions to get experienced, potentially good volunteers in... Regards--☮JAaron95 Talk 15:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Might just chime in here, I'd think that we as volunteers can keep an eye on DRN closely enough to manage any well-meaning but experienced volunteers, and not sure hard and fast edit count rules is needed (though, autoconfirmed status as a requirement I could live with). Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 00:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Action

I have boldly marked the Mark Regnerus case as "Needs attention" to draw attention to it needing a neutral moderator with some experience. I also added a party who has expressed an opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed Theeditorofallthingswikipedia from the volunteer list per the community restriction placed on that editor (See user's talk page). I've also collapsed his note as a volunteer in case, 'Talk:Mark Regnerus' with a note that he won't volunteer anymore and marked the case open. If any editor thinks that I've did something wrong, feel absolutely free to revert my actions. Regards--JAaron95 Talk 14:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
@Jaaron95: Thanks. I started a thread below regarding what appears to be TEoATW's sockpuppet abuse of the Regnerus case; maybe it should be closed? North of Eden (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
As noted below, it is usual to close a case if the filing party has been indeffed. It is unfortunately not uncommon that a case has to be closed due to a block. (If the block is for edit-warring, judgment is required, because waiting for an editor to come off block and then starting moderated discussion may be the best way to avoid future edit-warring.) In any case, I boldly closed the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Spiro Koleka

I would like feedback on the Spiro Koleka case. Maybe I made a mistake in ever taking a case in the Balkans. I think that the editors are talking past each other. Is there a way to get them to engage with either each other or a moderator, or will I have to throw it back to the talk page, in which case it will eventually wind up in Arbitration Enforcement? (There is no need for it ever to go to WP:ANI. Too many Balkan disputes go to ANI, and that step isn't necessary, because AE is a faster track, but I think that a few Balkan editors dislike each other and want to start drama.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I think your idea to use secondary statements is smart. I've followed the discussion a bit; it's rather perplexing (sort of like fighting the Fourth Balkan War on Wikipedia -- some things never change, I suppose). I would recommend sticking with your plan to see secondary statements, which hopefully answer the questions you posed (why should/shouldn't the sourced statements be kept; are there issues other than ethnicity). If the statements don't, it might be worth closing the discussion and recommending formal mediation or, alternatively, a user conduct forum. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the background to weigh in on ANI vs AE. North of Eden (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
My own experience is that, in areas where there is battleground editing because there have been real historical battlegrounds, WP:ANI never works, because the editors there are on both sides. That is why the ArbCom set up Arbitration Enforcement. When you refer to the Fourth Balkan War, was the Third Balkan War one in which fifteen million people were killed, including in Central Europe? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I forgot there were only two pre-WWI ones, so I was indeed thinking of WWI as the third. And that's a good point about ANI; if the discussion falls through, perhaps it would be worthwhile referencing AE as a possible forum. North of Eden (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I had to fail the case. The filing party has been blocked for edit-warring, and the editors are talking past each other. If edit-warring resumes, they can go to Arbitration Enforcement to prevent yet another Balkan War. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
As I have said, judgment is required in deciding whether to close a case when the filing party is blocked for edit-warring. In this case, first, the editors weren't engaging, and, second, admins had warned the filing party about conduct issues such as nationalistic insults. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I think your decision to close the case was correct. From what I can tell, this was more an ethnically charged edit war than a legitimate content dispute. North of Eden (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Cannot open DRN request

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution_noticeboard/request appears to be full-protected. Is there some other process to follow?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Click on the Request Dispute Resolution button that shows up when you navigate to that page. --regentspark (comment) 12:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, I did that of course. It just takes me to a locked page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, if you mean at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution_noticeboard/request subpage, not the the main DRN page, I get no such button.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks like DRN won't work for the dispute I have in mind anyway, since it says this is for "content disputes" and this is a different kind of "grievance" (a dispute about refactoring in Wikipedia_talk namespace).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The page you should be looking at is WP:DRN (not DRN/request). I tried it and it seems to work. Yes, DRN is only for content disputes. --regentspark (comment) 14:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Three great minds think alike. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
It is almost inconceivable to me that any dispute resolution page, whether for content or for conduct, would ever be fully protected. The purpose of full protection of an article is to stop edit-warring and to force discussion onto a talk page, but taking that discussion to a dispute resolution page should always be an option. Do other editors agree that it is almost inconceivable that DRN or another content dispute resolution or conduct dispute resolution page would be fully protected? So if the page seems fully protected, it is likely to be a mistake (more likely a mistake by the user than a mistaken lock by an admin). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The request page is deliberately full protected, to ensure the form is used and requests are not filed there accidentally. Quite similar to, say, how Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/ is full protected. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 00:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I will restate. Any page that is bot-maintained may reasonably be fully protected except for the bot, which may need the admin privilege to edit through. Any dispute resolution page to which general editors have access should almost never be fully protected. Since the purpose of full protection is to prevent edit-warring, any page that is used to resolve edit-warring should be accessible. As noted below, this may have been a case of not enabling JavaScript. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I hear what you're saying, but it's commonplace for certain pages to be full protected, like Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/, File:Example.jpg, and so on. We can probably add something to the page in case they don't have javascript enabled, but I would be opposed to lifting the full protection. Steven Crossin (was Steven Zhang) 05:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Starting over and re-explaining.
  1. I go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution_noticeboard.
  2. I click the big "Request dispute resolution".
  3. I am taken to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request, a full-protected page.
  4. Nothing happens.
I'm not sure what is supposed to happen or where. The button looks like the new wikiforms stuff; I've been able to use other ones, e.g. the wikiproject "card" signup system. I retrograded to a version of Chromium dating to early July 2015 in case it was a recent build problem. I trust that it does work for other people, since they say so, so I needn't fire up a bunch of other browsers (and don't need to make a DRN request right now). I would suggest that the DRN/request page needs a link on it to the effect of "if nothing happens, click here".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
PS: The form at WP:RFM worked.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Do you have javascript disabled? The request form at DRN uses JavaScript, so if it doesn't load, that might be why. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 00:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:British Pakistanis

Thanks TransporterMan for making your note on the case, I'll follow that convention. As you might know this is my first moderation, I would like you (and other moderators and North of Eden) to keep an eye on my moderation notes. Feel absolutely free to comment on my progress (especially if I make a mistake), in this section. I'll happily accept them good or bad. Regards--☮JAaron95 Talk 14:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Lessons Learned from Spiro Koleka thread

I would like to discuss briefly the handling of the Spiro Koleka case with two objectives. The first question is whether I or the DRN volunteers in general made errors or omissions in trying to mediate the dispute. The second is whether changes or clarifications to procedures would help prevent timesinks. An editor came to DRN with a dispute that was primarily about the ethnicity of a politician and the ethnicity of the region in which he was born, in a region, the Balkans, in which ethnicity sometimes results in hatred. After determining that there had been discussion at the article talk page, I opened the case to discussion. I had difficulty getting the editors to engage. That isn't unusual. However, what then happened is that the editors who were parties to the dispute resolution began edit-warring on the article. The filing party then opened a thread at WP:ANI, and got hit by his boomerang and was blocked. At this point, I failed the thread, both because the filing party was blocked, and because the editors were simply repeating themselves and talking past each other. First, did I make a mistake by not monitoring the article itself and warning the editors to stop edit-warring the article and engage at DRN? Second, there is a statement that we do not take an article if a dispute is being argued in another forum, such as WP:ANI or a specialized noticeboard. Should the policy also say anything about not taking a dispute to another noticeboard while a discussion is still pending here? (Maybe I made a mistake by taking a case involving the Balkans at all, because that sometimes involves someone who wants to refight the Third Balkan War, also known as World War One, but that is a private lesson for me.) Should moderators try to make sure that the article isn't also being edit-warred? What should be done if an article is being edit-warred during discussion here? Should the policy make it even more clear that discussion should be centralized here? Did I make a mistake in not so requesting? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

My question (as someone still pretty new to DR/N and yet to resolve a case with a successful result, meh...) is what it the overall policy for reading the entire article and the talk page before taking on the dispute in the first place? You do review, yes? Then what is the policy so far for article and talk monitoring by mediators? (I was a bit fuzzy on those rules myself, actually...) Maybe a more cut-and-dried rule is needed. I would suggest that if the same basic issue goes to ANI or to any other forum, then it's off the table here; we can advise that the parties should not go to a dramaboard while DR is pending, but sometimes a situation escalates so fast, one side or the other may feel compelled to do so. Perhaps we could amend the guidelines to say something like "an article generally should not be taken to ANI or a specialized noticeboard after a DR is filed, but if any party to the case becomes involved at these places (either as filing party or as involved party), then that will automatically close the DR." Just a thought. Montanabw(talk) 00:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I basically agree. I did review before taking on the case to determine whether it was pending somewhere else. Maybe the policy should clarify that the moderator should check the talk page (which I have usually done, but this time didn't) and advise any comments to go to DRN, and also to check whether the parties are editing the article. I agree that if an editor goes to ANI, the discussion should be failed, because it is no longer a content dispute. If the article is being edited while it is being discussed, maybe the moderator should warn them that editing the article while it is being discussed is unproductive. Thank you. Are there any more comments from more experienced editors? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I think you did just fine and that our !rules are fine as they are.
  • There's never been total agreement here among volunteers about the effect of a case going to a conduct forum such as ANI or process; some — probably most — believe that it ought to be treated just like a filing at another DR forum (i.e. that we don't take the case if it's already pending, and close our case if it's open), others feel that it should be addressed on a case by case basis and should be evaluated on the basis of whether or not that filing is likely to be disruptive to what happens here since the root of the pending-in-other-forum rule is whether or not the party is engaging in simultaneous forum shopping which might result in contradictory outcomes and disruption. The conduct forums may do something which causes a case here to be delayed (due to the length of the pending conduct case or due to someone being temporarily blocked) or become moot (due to a primary party being indeffed), but they won't issue a content opinion or decision which interferes with what we do.
  • Going to a specialized noticeboard, other than a DR forum or, perhaps as discussed above, a conduct forum, after filing here should not necessarily prevent a case from being filed here or cause a pending case to be closed. It should be evaluated on the basis of whether productive discussion is still happening, whether at that noticeboard or, for that matter, at the article talk page. If it is, then we're not needed and the case should be rejected, closed, or put on hold, otherwise they still need our help and should be able to get it.
  • Volunteers who have accepted or otherwise been involved as a volunteer in a case here at DRN should not become involved in issuing admonitions about conduct which happens outside DRN or in any conduct actions at places like ANI, especially while the case is still pending here. The more the volunteer becomes involved in such matters, the more it potentially looks like they're biased in favor of one party or another. It's hard enough to avoid that impression when dealing with misbehavior here at DRN, there's no reason to take it on the road as well.
  • Re taking cases from the Balkans all that I will say is that, though they're intractable enough, they're not as intractable as some others. I don't care to be any more specific than that but will note that there are some kinds of those cases which I will not ordinarily take for that reason.
Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I have learned that I should monitor the article page, and, if there is editing, advise that the editing should be discussed here. I personally have also had bad experiences with the Balkans, perhaps because I haven't even tried to take the Middle East or South Asia. (All areas of battleground editing, because all have really been historical battlegrounds. There has even been battleground editing in South Asia about how many people have been killed. In the Balkans, at least there is general agreement that it is fifteen million.) Robert McClenon (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a judgment call. If there's clearly productive discussion going on at the article talk page then that's where that discussion should be taking place so as to record it in the article history and unless we're pretty clearly needed to facilitate it, then the first choice would to be to refuse, close, or hold the DRN case to let that productive discussion continue. If the discussion is mostly or entirely unproductive, in the form of just regurgitating the same arguments or merely bickering or misbehavior and if they're also also talking here, then my usual reaction would be merely to ignore what's going on at the article talk page and proceed here; if it's unproductive and they're not discussing here (but have by making opening statements indicated that they want to talk here), then maybe I might drop a note there encouraging them to cut out the discussion there and bring it over here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree. The real problem is not that there was discussion at the talk page. It was that there was editing of the article, and edit-warring of the article, over the same substantive issues as the DRN discussion. As you said, it's a judgment call. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
No harm was done, because when the filing party went to ANI (the third forum, after talk page and DRN) to complain that the other editors were "vandalizing" the article, the boomerang hit. No harm done, except to the edit-warrior. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_21&oldid=1162217603"