Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard

Need Moderators

Two threads need moderators. Volunteers are asked to open the two threads that are waiting for moderators. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I just opened one of them. It is nice to get back to it after taking a break for a while. I was getting a bit burned out but now am refreshed and eager to help them resolve the dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Is archiving a live discussion a form of edit warring?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

When trying to sort out a content issue, an editor tries to stifle Talk Page discussion by immediately archiving the discussion, saying that the "discussion is closed". Is this edit warring? Is there a suitable way to deal with this tactic? Santamoly (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

This inquiry — which is off-topic here — has been answered on the editor's user talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 02:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@TransporterMan, can you explain further? Is there a better page for dispute "definition" questions? You haven't answered on my Talk Page; have you answered on someone else's Talk Page? Thanks! Santamoly (talk) 04:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC

Santamoly is talking about Talk: Pokémon Go#The CIA - bottling up the discussion!, in which four different editors (Czar (talk · contribs), Anarchyte (talk · contribs), Sergecross73 (talk · contribs) and myself) have closed a discussion early, because Santamoly failed to bring up new sources. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I advise everyone here to ignore the above and refuse to answer any further questions.

At the very top of this page it clearly states "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dispute resolution noticeboard page".

Anything other than discussing improvements to the dispute resolution noticeboard page needs to be taken elsewhere (WP:DRR is a good place to start), and we should not answer here because doing that encourages more off-topic discussions. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Commenting on Content, Not Contributors

Guy Macon wrote, on the project page: 'DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors. If anyone has a problem with this, let me know and we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer.' I mostly agree, but disagree only in the idea that any dispute resolution volunteer should even consider accepting a case in which one of the editors wants to discuss other editors. I would like to emphasize that, in my opinion, no editor should ever be focusing on the behavior of other editors. Guy is right. If there really is a content dispute and editors are willing to discuss content, talking about content may make any conduct issues, such as stubbornness, go away. If there really is a dispute that is primarily about conduct, this isn't the right place, and isn't even the least wrong place. The least wrong place to discuss editor conduct is either WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I would say that this is something that most of the volunteers here would agree with to a greater or lesser extent, Robert McClenon. I know that this was one reason that I liked to both watch cases unfold here, and to rarely take on a case when needed or in an area of interest (despite my drop off the radar). Hopefully more of the editors that bring their cases here read that before trying to use DRN and then being redirected, though that can be helpful as well. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 14:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

We are saying the same thing. Some volunteers say it more strongly than others. My only issue with what User:Guy Macon said was that implied that if an editor wants to talk about other editors, there might be volunteer who will allow it. There might, but we shouldn't encourage volunteers to permit discussion of the behavior of other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Really good comments. I think I will take the "If anyone has a problem with this, let me know and we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer" language out of my standard opening. Maybe I should add "If anyone has a problem with me as a mediator, let me know and we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer" at the end? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Dispute not handled appropriately?

Was this case handled appropriately: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Expulsion_of_Cham_Albanians

It was essentially opened and then closed within a few hours. I would have preferred if the discussion went on so I could clarify a few points. Also, it seems, at least to me, that the volunteer is under the impression that he/she is an arbitrator.

Could it be reopened? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

DevilWearsBrioni Responding for myself, the DRN isn't really the place for this, you went to the NOR, they presumably told you no, you came here, and would not be reasoned with in the face of facts, I do not think I am an arbitrator, as I mentioned i cannot force you to follow the instructions, I can only ask the admin to punish you if you dont. Also it only took an hour, the issue was very simple, You asked if it was OR, it was not, thus the case ended there. As I mentioned the DRN probably isnt the right place to go in the first place, I would again you recommend arbitration or mediation, as they are capable of making binding decisions. Iazyges (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

As per Q.10 of the FAQ I pointed you in the right direction (arbitration or mediation.) Iazyges (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

DevilWearsBrioni, we have had it enough with your refusals and denials. This has gone too far. Edit warrings, 3RR breaches, failure to reach a consensus with other users in the talk pages, disruptive edits, abuse of Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanisms, prolongation of a dispute that could otherwise have been easily settled down, and now you are not accepting the dispute resolution! This is way too much and very unfair.

@ Iazyges, to me it is clear that this user is refusing to get the point and I have already warned him multiple times for that, but from what I see, he is insisting with his disruptive behavior. -- SILENTRESIDENT 10:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually Iazyges you closed the dispute thread very quickly and did not give myself a chance to reply (at least 24 hours to get all those involved a say at least) while the previous dispute mediator gave some time for all to participate. You have summerised the issues however those sources did not contradict that the Chams "didn't want to fight on the side of the ottomans". Baltsiotis was referring to the eve of the Balkan Wars when that sentiment existed. All Cham militias were formed with the commencement of the Balkan Wars by their elites in autumn when the Balkan Wars started. It was one of the reasons why there was a OR issue because the sentence was clumped with other content when it should have been separate.Resnjari (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Resnjari: Well as I pointed out this was in the wrong place to file it begin with, it should have been appealed to the NOR, or done RFC, arbitration or mediation. The dispute was if the sentence was original research, by translating the greek source on the page, is perfectly in line with the text, (other than the ottoman thing which will be fixed). Ergo the case was done, it had been proven that it was not OR, even though this board isn't really for that. Iazyges (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Iazyges:. My main concern was that you said that the bit about the Chmans not wanting to fight on the Ottomans side was contradicted by other sources. Baltsiotis was referring to the sentiment on the eve of the Balkans wars. The other sources referred to the start and continuance of that conflict with Chams participating. Your remarks on that would mean that that part of the sentence would be removed by editors even though there is no contradiction with any of the scholarship. That is what concerned me and i did not have the time to respond to that. You closed it to quick.Resnjari (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Resnjari, you are trying to create a discussion here even though it is over. And what you said is not solid proof that there is an OR case... From the moment the scholars agreed that the Chams had a hatred for the Greeks and sided with the Ottomans already from the beginning of the war, leaves no open room for speculations from your part about their reluctance. The sources explain that the Chams opposed - through their actions - the Greeks already from the onset of the war and this says it all. Now if you have trouble facing the facts, it is not my problem. But I will not allow you and your friend, DevilWearsBrioni, to drag everyone into endless debates about a historical event that took place 100 years ago and in spite of solid sources proving that the Chams rushed to Ottoman aid from Autumn already. I am sorry but this is how things are. And it is not Iazyges' fault that you didn't pay attention to the noticeboard for a reply from you to be made in time Have a good day. -- SILENTRESIDENT 13:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@SilentResident even in your comment "From the moment the scholars agreed that the Chams had a hatred for the Greeks and sided with the Ottomans already from the beginning of the war" you still refer to the beginning of the war. Baltsiotis was referring to the eve of the war and that there is no contradiction with any of the sources. Yes the Chams did have a "hatred" of the Greeks as the Balkans war stated (which was in autumn too). For Muslims it was a invasion, while for Christians it was a liberation and there is multiple sources for that. Again the thread was closed to quick for other editors involved to give a response and no one is dragging anyone here or there (closed within the hour !). A new adjudicator entered the picture. You may not have been busy to respond and Brioni too, but i and Alexikoua did not respond. At the very least a response so some kind of impartiality can be observed. Also why are you referring to Brioni as my friend? Please no need for that. As an editor i am a lone operator and prefer it that way. Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

It is friend, in the sense of colleague / mate / fellow wiki user whom you shared opinions and are on the same side on the debate. Not friends in real life sense. -_- -- SILENTRESIDENT 13:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Just refer to him as a fellow editor. Its neutral terminology. I don't know his personal views nor do i care for that of others. This is an encyclopedia and we use scholarship to edit it. Beyond that what a person has as their personal belief system/views/mores etc does not interest me one bit. Each editor has their own viewpoint. Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled by the technicalities of the closure. One reason is that it appears that there may have been an unannounced change in moderation. The original moderator was User:Guy Macon. Was the close by User:Iazyges? Also, there isn't a regular formal close summary. I am not objecting to the close, but am a little puzzled. Who closed it, and what is the close summary? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon as guy macon was dealing with real world issues, I offered to take over the case and he said yes, you can check his talk page if you'd like. If you look under guy macons introduction, I introduced myself. Iazyges (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I will note that, if editors want to go forward beyond DRN with something binding, that should be Request for Comments. Arbitration is not in order because it is only used as the last stop for conduct disputes (and because Arbitration Enforcement is already available), and formal mediation, while an excellent way to work out disputes, is not capable of making binding decisions. Any editor who doesn't like the result can submit a neutrally worded RFC, which is binding. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Robert McClenon, I have made my position clear: this dispute is being dragged for a very very long time even if it is not an OR case, only because the users above are not satisfied with the fact that nobody had agreed with them and nobody has accepted their opinions. But this is not my problem anymore, and from the moment the 3rd parties have concluded that this is not a OR case, a resolution came clear I am done with it and I do not intent to sit around until these above guys are finally convinced about the weakness of their OR claims (which not only failed to convince us the others in article's Talk Page, but also on the NOR noticeboard!). For me it is really over this time, so if there is going to be any reopening of the case, it will be done in my absence, and its validity will be questioned, because dragging it for so long and keeping disputing the resolution gives the disturbing impression "lets drag the case infinitely until the decission is overturned to their favor, and then close it". The way this user has dragged this case anywhere, even on 2 different noticeboard, has truly exhausted me because I am called to defend the obvious in a case which otherwise could have been dismissed from the start, given the sources. Have a good day. -- SILENTRESIDENT 13:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon two of the four editors participated in the discussion with a new mediator to the discussion which was closed within the hour. Two found time to participate, while two (me being one) was not free at that moment to at least give a reply. It was closed within one hour which brings issues up of being a impartial decision. The other mediator at least gave some time for all to give their response. I will say that we do have lives outside Wikipedia too.Resnjari (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

DevilWearsBrioni represented the one side, and I (SilentResident) represented the other side. Where do you see the impartiality here??? Do not forget - Alexikoua also was not present, so 1 to 1 was not in favor of either side. The discussion was anything but impartial because both sides were represented during the resolution in equal numbers. Both sides were present, both sides made their statements, and the overseer valued upon them and the sources provided before making the final decission. Nice try of your part to dispute a resolution that was not in your favor this way but this is not convincing... -- SILENTRESIDENT 13:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

SilentResident Like I've explained to you on several occasions before, if my conduct is an issue, take it to ANI. I don't appreciate this false narrative you've created which attempts to discredit me. Any unsubstantiated accusation you've made here I'd gladly respond to at ANI.

Iazyges: You repeatedly attacked a straw man rather than addressing the real issue. The dispute essentially became a shouting contest, where posts like this went unpunished. Guy made a good effort actually making sure such posts weren't tolerated. Further, you didn't even address some of the concerns I raised with regards to synthesis of material, even though your were actively involved in the discussion. You basically dismissed any further discussion with your second statement, that's hardly a discussion. You state: as I mentioned i cannot force you to follow the instructions, I can only ask the admin to punish you if you dont What does that even mean? For the record, Q10 addresses, as far as I can tell, why disputes that don't belong at DRN are closed which is irrelevant to our case. Formal mediation is out of the question since the opposing editros will simply refer to this case, and arbitration deals with user conduct. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh my, now you are attacking Iazyges, dear Resnjari? You aren't serious, are you? If you are, then I stop my participation right here. Enough, simply enough, I have had it enough. I am so tired and exhausted, this dispute caused by your colleague DevilWearsBrioni is NEVER ENDING and I doubt now that you really intend to ever end it. We are dragged into THREE SEPARATE PAGES and if that wasn't enough, now there are attenpts to re-open(!) and re-discuss(!) it all from beginning? You do not want to end this dispute! God, this is indimitation if not something! I am seriously considering abandoning the Wikipedia project now... -_- -- SILENTRESIDENT 13:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Resnjari and DevilWearsBrioni are dragging a nonsense dispute anywhere, just to prove their point and without respect for anything, not even respect to 3rd party mediators such as Iazyges. I do not want to be part of it anymore. My statement is final. I wish everyone a good day and do not expect more replies from me, because you know, I need to protect my sanity. -- SILENTRESIDENT 13:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)