Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Process reminder to all volunteers about opening statements

Yet another epistle from 'ol tldr-TM: Can I remind everyone, that the general standard here is not to open discussion or give advice on a case until all principal participants have made opening statements? That doesn't mean that every listed participant has to have replied, since sometimes listing editors include pretty minor players. Nor does it mean that discussions should be opened just because everyone the listing editor has listed has replied if there are other participants who should have been listed but who haven't been — always check the article talk page. Finally, it doesn't mean that you can't do just the opposite of what I'm saying here; heck we're all volunteers here. But if you'll look back through the discussions here, you'll see that in its original form we didn't have opening statement sections. They were added just so that disputes could be fully developed as a prerequisite before volunteers step in. The concept and design of this board is based around their use.

If you need to ask a question or make a statement before a case is opened, feel free to do so but please make sure that you say that you're not opening the case. If you do open a case before everyone has made opening statements, explain why you're doing it. Remember that a late-entering editor can mess up everything you've done before their entry.

If there's a good reason to resolve a case without waiting for everyone to make an opening statement, such as an ironclad policy-required solution to the dispute, or a dispute being filed in a case where there's already an unassailable consensus, put that explanation in the closing statement in the {{DRN archive top}} tag or as a note in the end of the discussion section if it's too long to put in the tag and refer to it in the tag. Don't just say it in the discussion and leave the case open for people to hack at your reasoning. But — be sure first before you do it.

Am I a hypocrite? That is, if you search back through my edits here will you find examples of where I didn't do as I just said above? Absolutely. We all have a great deal of discretion and every dispute is different and we need the flexibility to deal with them in a way which will best serve to improve the encyclopedia. But the usual routine should be to follow the concepts on which this noticeboard is founded. Or work to to change them: this board's design and processes are subject to change by consensus, just like everything here at Wikiworld.

Finally, thank you for volunteering. Your work here makes a difference. Even if you can't resolve every dispute, you stand as an example of the way things are supposed to work. Good for you. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

What I have done in the past if I had to mention something in the discussion area before the opening...I would ID myself, but not sign the post to avoid the sig from opening the case.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hans von Ohain

Dispute resolution requests made on this page will not be answered. In order to request dispute resolution, click here and follow the instructions. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi have made the following edit to the article on Hans von Ohain. My previous edit has been removed. The edit is properly cited (in fact is drawn from the previously cited source by the article originator.and corrects several errors in the original article.

Below is my revised text. I would like to know on what basis my original edit was removed please.

Completeaerogeek.

Hans Joachim Pabst von Ohain (14 December 1911 – 13 March 1998) was a German engineer, and designer an early turbojet engine. His first design ran under its own power in September 1937, and it was one of his engines that powered the first all-jet aircraft, the prototype of the Heinkel He 178 in late August 1939. In spite of these early successes, other German designs quickly eclipsed von Ohain's, and none of his engine designs entered widespread production or operational use.

Von Ohain developed his first gas turbine engine during the period that Frank Whittle was doing the same in the UK, but despite what it often stated, he was aware of Whittle's work and had read his patents. In fact, despite sporadic denials, he is quoted on several occasions clearly indicating that this was the case. In her book "Elegance in Flight"[1] Margaret Conner describes how Ohain's "patent attorney happened upon the Whittle patent in the years that the von Ohain patents were being formulated". von Ohain himself is quoted as saying "We felt that it looked like a patent of an idea" "we thought that it was not seriously being worked on." During development the two projects were often within weeks of meeting the same milestones however, in spite of significantly greater funding and support, von Ohain's Heinkel HeS 1 ran under its own power six months after Whittle's WU, but because of Ernst Heinkel's support, von Ohain's design flew first in 1939, followed by Whittle's in 1941. Operational jet aircraft from both countries entered use only weeks apart.

After the war the two men met, and became friends. von Ohain is quoted as saying to Whittle on one occasion If you had been given the money you would have been six years ahead of us. If Hitler or Goering had heard that there is a man in England who flies 500mph in a small experimental plane and that it is coming into development, it is likely that World War II would not have come into being"[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Completeaerogeek (talk • contribs) 04:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Morgellons discussion - appropriateness of InLoveNoi

I am questioning whether the involvement of InLoveNoi in the Morgellons discussion is appropriate. This user's first-ever edits to Wikipedia were to open this case, and the comments made are inappropriate for the opening of a DRN case. Could an experienced DRN volunteer review this? Zad68 12:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

@InLoveNoi: I'm an experienced DRN volunteer. The DRN guidelines say, "it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important." (Emphasis added.) With only six Wikipedia edits, and all of them at DRN, can you explain how it is that you have the required knowledge of WP policies and guidelines in order to be a volunteer here? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I maintain that I have a good enough knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. May I bring also your attention that very important doesn't mean required. You shouldn't force your opinion on an independent DRN imho.

I would much more appreciate if your action would come in a form of advice, and not "taking over".

Who said that number of edits necessarily correlates with knowledge of policies? I can read.

And, as you have agreed, it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. And, DRN is an informal process. InLoveNoi (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

(I've been watching this develop). Given InLoveNoi's apparent refusal to accept that mediation is best left to experienced Wikipedian's I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that admin intervention may be needed. Does anyone have any alternate suggestions, or should I raise it at WP:ANI? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I've placed (what I hope is) a final advisement to InLoveNoi regarding their involvement at the discussion. If it continues I support requesting intervention at WP:ANI. Zad68 15:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Disruption is continuing after final warning. Zad68 15:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Who will be starting the ANI thread? I'm willing to if Andy hasn't already started, only need one editor doing it. Zad68 15:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I've posted a final warning on InLoveNoi's talk page: if that doesn't get the message across, I'll raise this at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I have opened this issue at WP:ANI. :) InLoveNoi (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Nice end run! What's that curved thing the Indigenous Australians use for hunting called again? Zad68 15:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Please note the following ANI discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_and_intervention. Zad68 15:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Morgellons - notification

I've just notified an involved editor who probably did not see the earlier notice. -- Scray (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Douglas Karpen listing

Listing should be closed as pending in another venue as the article is pending at AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Karpen. Since I nominated it at AfD it would be inappropriate for me to deal with it here. egards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Morgellons - next step?

What are we waiting for before we can move forward at Morgellons? I feel like we're losing momentum, I don't want the participants to wander away or have the DRN discussion to fall apart and then have no resolution/have to revisit this again in a week or two. Thanks.... Zad68 13:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

See the listing, waiting for a couple of editors to weigh in. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the update TM. Zad68 16:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Istrian exodus

I think the bot that manages the DRN process is broken. I put up a notice on the "Istrian exodus" dispute that I was formally recusing myself from anything to do with that case, for reasosn I gave in my notice. The bot seems to consider that notice as a sign that a volunteer has taken on the case. This is not true, and I:

a) formally announce my recusal (for the second time) from that case b) request that someone else take on the Istrian exodus case asap.

--The Historian (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

(I realise this was almost a week ago) The bot opens the case when it sees any comment from a listed volunteer, so it's working fine. It's a bit of a bug, but short of requiring volunteers to manually open the case there probably isn't anything that can be done about it. One work-around is to have a alternate account that's clearly linked and isn't on the volunteers list, and use that to make comments without opening the case. CarrieVS (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Volunteer needed

I've received a couple of inquiries on my talkpage from one of the participants in Battle of Kursk trying to get it moving. I can't take it over due to being conflicted out (and indeed probably shouldn't have even made the one comment I made there). On July 6 I dropped a note on the talk pages of the other two volunteers who have weighed in there and have received no response. (No criticism intended there, by the way; we all get busy sometimes.) Since interest is still being expressed by a participant I'm hoping that someone else might consider taking it over. I've extended the Do Not Archive date to July 23. Anyone interested? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I read the article & talk page today and, from what I can tell, it's a pretty esoteric debate - it certainly requires an experienced hand. Mine is less so, but tag me if there's a way I can help otherwise. EBY (talk) 12:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I'll take it on. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 04:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hrm... I've started my asking pointed questions on the Kursk dispute as part of "The Reaper" process. I'll see what kind of response I get in the next few days, but I may push for a "Closed: Stale" if I get no response. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

DRN Changes

Well Im sure many got the call to arms message from User:Steven Zhang...
(PS. I am still reasonably active here, just mainly in a cleanup role, rather than taking cases for the past few weeks :P).

So what are the changes, what do they involve, what do we need to do to help implement them?

And I'll try to take on a few more cases in the coming weeks :D (busy with IRL stuff)

-- Nbound (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

UK yellow book

Dispute resolution requests made on this page will not be answered. In order to request dispute resolution, click here and follow the instructions. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
UK yellow book65.33.250.54 (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)looking for court decision 3/15/2013čŲĶŷellowbook

Name of victim of 2012 Delhi rape case

This is not the forum to request administrative action relating to conduct matters and we are not administrators here. Use WP:ANI for that purpose. Content dispute resolution requests made on this page will not be answered. In order to request content dispute resolution, click here and follow the instructions. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

There has been extensive discussion about including the name of the victim of 2012 Delhi rape case in this section ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2012_Delhi_gang_rape_case#Wikipedia_not_a_place_for_personal_opinion). The name has been verified and her father had himself directly requested the name to be made public. All requirements to include her name have been met. However User:The Banner and User:Lukeno94 have not allowed to.include the name on the pretext that consensus is against it and if a consensus does not allow even verifable information to be included if cannot. However it is the total opposite. Verifiable information which are significant cannot be removed a consensus since they are not subject to decisions by consensus. Not only that they are also resorting to lying by saying that consensus in favor of including the name. However, they are actually the only ones in favor of that decision. As can be seen from the above mentioned section of the talk page me and User:Gandydancer are in favor of including the name. Also it can be seen here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rape_victim_identification_at_2012_Delhi_gang_rape_case ) that User:Khazar2 is undecided. Not only that User:The Banner has made disruptive comments and is giving threats. I agree I earlier made a personal opinion known but it was never anyhting outrageous or cruel. I don't deserve the flak users gave me. It can clearly seen that this discussion was about emotions and not about improving Wikipedia. User:The Banner thinks by including her name I'm insutling her memory. It can be clearly seen he is the one trying to enforce his opinions here and he is the disruptive editor. User:Lukeno94 also displayed similar behavior earlier. Not only that The Banner calls this discussion a game. This user has made an embarrassing drama out of this serious discussion already. I request the admins to step in and prevent him and Lukeon94 from imposing their own views. Thank you very much. TransVannian (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

As it states at the top of this page: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dispute resolution noticeboard page". You aren't going to get any response by posting this here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm extremely sorry for that sir I request you to please remove it. TransVannian (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I have not agreed with this editor. S/He has been disruptive on the talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Azerbaijani people

One of the editors involved in the "Azerbaijani people" dispute that was listed here has notified me that this dispute has been accidentally archived, even though it has not actually finished with a definite conclusion. Could someone please rectify this and reopen it please? --The Historian (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Done, though I'm not sure what the bots will think of it. Since the participants may have come to believe that it's closed, be sure to notify them that it's open again. When you close a case, please be sure to:

Change or insert XXX to the proper status in the {{DR case status|XXX}} tag. If it's not there and you have to insert it be sure to put a | before the XXX code. There are a list of allowable XXX codes at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Volunteering.
Replace the  comments with {{DRN archive top|reason=[State the reason.] — ~~~~}} on a line by itself, with no spaces to the left or right. Make sure that there's a hard carriage return just to the left of the opening {{ and that it's not just wrapping from the previous line, and that there's another hard carriage return immediately after the closing }}.
Place {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the discussion section on a line by itself, with no spaces to the left or right. Make sure that there's a hard carriage return just to the left of the opening {{ and that it's not just wrapping from the previous line, and that there's another hard carriage return immediately after the closing }}.

If you don't do those things, the archiving bot is liable to mess up, as it did here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I have just noticed that the dispute has been archived again. I don't know whether this was done accidentally or not, but regardless the dispute was not resolved yet. No third opinion was given. Could please something be done about this dispute? Verdia25 (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not accidental this time. The bot archives anything that's at least two weeks old (i.e. past the date on it's DoNotArchiveUntil tag) and hasn't been commented on in 24 hours - it is intentional that stale disputes get archived. If there's a reason why discussion halted (for instance, a key participant had to drop out temporarily) or you think there's still discussion ongoing and a good chance of reaching a resolution, then it might be worth de-archiving it if the participants ask for it, but in general cases that get archived without closing are considered de facto 'failed'. CarrieVS (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. There was indeed no discussion going on, but I did not had anything more to say. I have given my arguments and counterarguments against the other party's arguments, however the other party did not go against my counterarguments that I gave. Instead he repeated his arguments or responded 'personal argument prohibited'. We discussed before in the article's talk page[1] and now here on the DRN. I conclude that the other party is simply not willing to (properly) discus this matter. I personally think it would therefore be fair that the description should be changed to the original. However, if I would just do it now, soon it will be referred back by him. The dispute could be de-archived but I assume that it will not lead to a discussion, but it's still an option. Verdia25 (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like there's any point in de-archiving it; it sounds like DRN has failed. There are other dispute resolution venues, which may be able to help in ways we can't. Volunteers don't have any authority or privileges; all we can do is try and help people communicate and get to a consensus. If they can't or won't, there's nothing more DRN can do. CarrieVS (talk) 12:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not feel like to report this dispute again. Before the report here I already reported twice on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring but those weren't resolved. I could report this dispute again for a fourth time and the dispute could still not get anywhere. The discussion here on DRN has stopped but I would appreciate a third opinion of any of the volunteers who participated. Verdia25 (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Canada DRN case

It appears this was mistakenly closed due to no discussion, despite their being plenty of it. Talk:Canada#Culture_section_and_strict_gun_control

Im not sure on the specifics of re-opening cases, so I would appreciate it if someone else could :) -- Nbound (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved users?

Are uninvolved users permitted to weigh in on ongoing disputes? Since I see only listed parties posting on the DRN I figured I'd better ask before jumping into a discussion. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, definitely. Please do :) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 03:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Subpage talk pages

Now we've got subpages we also have subpage talk pages. How, if at all, should they be used? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I would redirect them all to this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I would also support redirecting them here. No need for the discussions to be split. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

All hands on deck!

@Cabe6403, TransporterMan, Guy Macon, and Amadscientist: - DRN is semi-operational again! If you've got some time, can you please try and get some people back here so we can clear the backlog, and make this place lively again? There's not many volunteers as of late, so we need to pick things up again! Ideas? (barnstars, teahouse-style badges, revamped volunteers page?) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 12:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Should I make the obligatory badges joke? ;-) I'll see what I can do after I finish up Morgellons. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC) PS: For some reason, Echo didn't work. I picked this up from my regular watchlist, and had not received a notification. I'm wondering if the multi-recipient version of {{ping}} isn't working correctly? — TM 13:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC) PPS: Echo-ing the reason it didn't work. — TM 21:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

It now appears that there is an active volunteer at each case which has been opened or which is ripe for opening, save the very last one, Aam Aadmi Party, and I, at least, am not willing to take that case unless the listing editor becomes way more specific about what edits he wants to discuss. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I just closed Aam Aadmi Party after the listing party withdrew the case. I suspect that we will see this one again. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

This talk page is not for discussing content disputes.

You did, and you also took it on yourself to revert the article. Which was not A Good Thing, given that all you have reverted is citation fixes etc. This one will turn up again, along with many other articles concerning Indian politics - there are big state elections later this year, and national elections next year. The POV pushers are out, the parties have become internet-savvy and, let's face it, people are being killed and seriously injured in India for being active in supporting one side or another. We need more eyes, sure, but my bet is WP:ANI will see more of it than WP:DRN. - Sitush (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I have had both positive and negative interactions with one of the editors in the first DRN and the last DRN that was closed, so I didn't involve myself in those, but I will take some time later this evening to review the main page and see where I can assist.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I also have positive and negative interactions with two editors at 2012 Delhi gang rape case DRN and cannot volunteer there.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I have positive and negative interactions with a user on the Aesthetic Realism DRN and cannot volunteer there.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

For whatever reason, the bot never added Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. Could someone fix that?Casprings (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe the bot is not functioning at the moment in that manner and that new cases need to be manually added. If it hasn't been added I will look into it.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

It appears we could use a manual update to the template. Since I am not sure how this will effect the template functions, I will leave a note at User:Steven Zhang's talk page.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/2013 in British music

Very little discussion on the talk page. Opened prematurely and discussion seems to be centered on a strict interpretation of MOS that is actually 'not and absolute. Editors are now centered on discussing one editor and has crossed into behavioral conflict and less about a content dispute. I will be closing this case unless other volunteers object.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Tony1 has posted on the closed filing. I feel if he needs to be addressed my doing do will only provoke the editor further, but he has been uncivil and does not seem familiar with DR/N procedure from my reading of his comments.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Useless, that DRN. Poorly managed. Opportunities missed. The process needs to be deleted, IMO. Tony (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Going to the extreme over not finding resolution here is not, in my opinion, a reasonable reaction considering the filing editor also felt the case should be closed. Steven Zhang has reopened the case. I am recusing myself from further input there.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Jehovah's Witnesses

I am looking into closing this as resolved. Talk page discussion has indicated a resolution has been reached by the parties involved. Confirming with parties all information needed before closing. This dispute was also recently at AN/I and should have all its i's dotted and t's crossed for the best chance of not reoccurring in either locations.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

DRN subpaging has been implemented.

Hi all,

The change to DRN threads being subpaged is complete. At present, the DRN bot is currently offline, so it will be necessary to check the DRN subpages to look for new cases, and add them manually. This should only be the case for a few hours, give or take. I'm going to be implementing the other changes (DRN rotating co-ordinator, revamp of volunteer list) over the coming days, but this one was priority one. Bugs have been ironed out, but please let me know if you spot any issues.

Cheers, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 10:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Good job with it all. I've been reasonable inactive last two months but its nice to come back and see this is still progressing. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Something's wrong with it--I can't see anything but the first case, and when I click the links for other cases in the table, I just get taken right back to the top of the page. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe Steven is still working on it but yes, there are a number of cases missing currently. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 11:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually it looks like there's a pretty serious issue with the indenting continuing from one transcluded page to the next. I'll have a look and see if I can help sort it. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 12:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I took two levels out of the headings (i.e. ==== went to ==) and it seems to have improved it. I think the subpage heading levels will need to be worked on

@Steven Zhang:: I know it's late for you, but could you say a few words about how archiving and {{DRN archive top}} and etc are now supposed to work? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Haha, I gotta love Echo. Yeah, it's an ungodly hour. I think we might move to a semi-automated archiving system. I think we could maybe break the page up into two parts, current disputes and recently closed disputes. Once a dispute is closed, it's moved to the second section and sits there for a few days, then the bot archives it. I'm going to implement the previously discussed rotating co-ordinator role shortly (once I've written up the description) and it may sound presumptuous, but I was going to do the first month (until September 1) so I can assist in the transition to sub paging, iron out any code issues and resume gathering monthly stats on DRN (like I did when I was a fellow) and write up best practices so when the next person takes their shift, they're not in the dark. What do you think? Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 13:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Fine by me. About the archiving, though, I was more concerned about what happens on the subpages rather than on the mainpage. I presume that once they're created by the bot that they'll exist forever and that we'll just use {{DRN archive top}} (sidebar: do we still want that template to collapse the discussion or should it just box it or indicate a status?) to indicate their closed or resolved or whatever status and that nothing will get copied / moved into [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive #]] by the bot. Am I close? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest it is still put in a box and collapsed. Those interested can simply expand the box but it makes it obvious the dispute is closed and shouldn't be edited. Plus I think it looks a neater. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Once disputes are closed, they'll be taken off the DRN noticeboard and put in an archive. I'm working on the specifics, but it will largely be the same as it is now, but with a different template. I'm gonna keep a much closer eye on DRN to ensure there aren't any bumps (or as few as possible) but this is a big shake-up, the transition will take time. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 14:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Unrelated to the above discussion but still relevant. TOC, do we need it when we have the list of disputes in the DRN box anyway? To me it's always been a bit unwieldy and large. Would we really lose much if it was simply removed? Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm...I'm gonna try something...hang on. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 14:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. I think I've made something we can use. How is this? Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!}

Fine, but I'm having trouble understanding what the benefit of subpages is if we're going to transclude the entire discussion onto the main page. Shouldn't the main page simply be a list of links to the subpages? Or what am I overlooking? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Trout slap me. The biggest is the ability to watchlist just the subpage, duh. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that's pretty much it. It also may help keep participants more engaged. Their watchlist isn't clogged with DRN, and they can see when their case has been edited. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 14:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Am I right that {{DRN case status}} (left column) still shows the old links? I tried to fix it but failed.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that will be fixed once the bot is up and running. I'm off to bed for now. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 15:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Good, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

@Cabe6403 and Steven Zhang: Do you know whether or not the listing bot is both creating new subpages and listing them on the main page at this point? Or are they just getting created but not listed? Or not created at all? Should we be watching the subpage list to see if anything pops up? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Subpages are created by the script. It will be the task of the bot to add them. Until Earwig flicks the switch, we will need to keep an eye out on that page, yes. But it's only for a few more hours, I imagine. OK. It's 2am and i've been up for 20 hours. I'm going to bed. It's been a productive day (I'm working on coding a new archive template, it's not quite there yet. Not urgent, but I want it done :)) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 15:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, you're the one who recently told me that you don't need much sleep. Isn't a hour enough? You could put in 3 more hours here at the DRN salt mines. Just kidding. Thanks for all the good work. Nighty, night, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The system isn't working. There is no link that takes one to the subpage so it can be watched. I suspect some templates need to be fixed. In fact, there should not be any discussion content on the main page, only links to the subpages. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking that this would be nice also. Something at the top of each dispute that either takes you to the specific subpage or (is it possible?) a link that watches the subpage? Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

When the bot is put online, the DR case status template will be updated to reflect the new format. Just sit tight for now - you'll see :) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 12:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

@Steven Zhang:: Do we have any idea when the bot will be back up and running? Also, this ping thing is great, never used it before today Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Salvatore J. Cordileone

The case has been re-opened. Seems to be too complicated to ask the filing editor to re-file and I was able to get it re-opened manually. I have agreed to assist the filing editor to lay out all of the pertinent article and a centralized discussion to look at and see if it qualifies as extensive discussion for this dispute and if it is a community wide discussion pertaining to Wikipedia as a whole for consistency or just at the project level for their own project guide. I figured it couldn't hurt to look further as they claim the centralized discussion may be key to the dispute. While I am not sure if this is accurate it seems that re-opening for a closer examination could not hurt. if anyone disagrees feel free to close the case.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

In looking at the situation, there is no community wide discussion or a project related discussion centralized in any manner. The filing editor is mistaken in assuming that consistency from article to article is required by any consensus discussion. Dealing strictly with the dispute, this is a matter needing to be worked out at the talk page in some manner, be it an informal request for comment, formal RFC or bold edit. But I do not believe there is an actual dispute here by our definition.

Some Catholic subjects have been having some individual disputes and there seems to be a small community of editors that work on these articles. There seems no particular reason to be concerned that consensus is not being worked out in the proper manner on any of the articles linked that I can see.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

General Disputes

I quite often see disputes here that, though they are listed as a specific dispute on a specific article, turn out to be just a symptom of a much larger ongoing dispute. A good example is the Salvatore J. Cordileone case, which is only unusual in that the fact that it's a perennial dispute for which they want a general answer is explicitly mentioned in the original filing. Often, it gradually becomes clear as the case progresses that the issue will only be agreed on by a general 'rule' (e.g. should bishops and archbishops' articles be updated as soon as an appointment is made or only after the bishop is installed, as opposed to what should be done on the Salvatore J. Cordileone article specifically).

How should these disputes be handled? So far, I've always closed such cases as being beyond the scope of DRN, and referred it to a relevant wikiproject or suggested an RfC when it becomes clear that it's not a dispute over a specific piece of content, but they happen often enough that I'd like to clarify this. I guess the options are, try and mediate the general dispute, try and solve the specific dispute while making it clear it's not necessarily a general solution, or refer the case elsewhere. CarrieVS (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I also see this problem come up in a slightly different context and have a standard approach: One editor wants to do something a particular way at a particular article and his opponent objects on the basis that "all articles about X do it the other way" or "we decided at the X project that all articles about X would do it the other way." In that case, I first advise them that every article stands on its own and that what's done in one article has no bearing on what is done in any other article, and that participants in a project don't have the right to impose uniformity across a class of articles, see WP:CONLIMITED. I then go on to say that the only way to create uniformity across a class of articles is to create a policy or guideline which mandates that uniformity via the procedures described in the Policy policy and that unless that's done then how it's to be done has to be decided on an article by article basis via consensus. I wrap up by telling the opponent that he has no right to insist on doing it the uniform way and since the listing editor opposes doing it that way that the opponent's time would be much better spent going to a proper venue such as WP:MOS and seeking to establish a guideline on the issue. (Sidebar: There's no reason, by the way, that the policymaking can't be done at a project so long as it is done using the proper policymaking methods to involve the entire community. Indeed, there are some real guidelines and policies which are housed at projects, but that's not really the right place for them to be housed and, at least for me, I always wonder if they were properly adopted when I find them there. They really need to go into MOS or into their own guideline or policy page.) That's what I do in that situation, and I think it kind of answers your question as well. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I have tried three times to post but my browser kept freezing and losing the page. In a nut shell, I agree with the above two comments and would say the filing in question is not even an actual centralized discussion and there is nothing to indicate the projects are involved for even their own guide. The project discussion is the filing editor posting multiple times with only one other post by another editor.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Do not archive until

@Steven Zhang: Hey, Steve, under the old system the do not archive until (DNAU) tag limited a filing's life to two weeks, after which there had to be at least one edit every 24 hours in order to prevent archiving. I see that tag is missing on the subpages. Is that just a function of the bot not working or has that gone away? If it's gone away, I'd like to !vote to have it restored so as to keep a cap on disputes to keep them from dragging on and on and on. It would have to change, of course, since merely removing the transclusion link from the main page onto an archive page (which is what I presume that the archive bot will do in the future) won't keep the discussion from continuing on the subpage. It'll have to be some kind of autoclose, instead, and needs to be adjustable by volunteers so that a volunteer can manually extend the DNAU period if the volunteer believes that progress is being made, albeit slowly or intermittently. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I presume (knowing nothing about bots) that that wouldn't be too hard to implement and/or may already be implemented by the bot creator and just need a few tweaks for DRN. Regarding a DNAU extension, a flag that extends it by, say five days, before it reverts back to the one edit per 24 hours mode again would be suitable I think. If another five days are needed, just add another flag. The reason for it not being perminant is so no one forgets about it and it just sits there. That was it'd just be a stalling rather than holding process. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Gun Control DR/N

I have added myself to the new DR/N filing as I am directly involved in this dispute and was not listed. I formally recuse myself as a volunteer to participate in the discussion of "Gun Control" as an involved party. Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a somewhat related question open at AN. The question posed was "AndyTheGrump has now stated his intent to circumvent all further discussion and redirect the article under discussion.[...] I would like to have an enforced moratorium on any such action, and direction that any actions must be taken through established formal dispute resolution processes.". It is fairly clear that there is consensus against my requested action of a moratorium. However, as that question was specifically related to merging/redirection of the article, this should not interfere with a content dispute of the content itself, and this DR should be allowed to proceed. (For what its worth, the controversial content ALREADY EXISTS (and has for months and months) in the proposed redirect target, so if he goes ahead and does redirect, all that changes is the venue of the content dispute.)

As the consensus has formed on the AN question, I ask that this DR be allowed to proceed. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

No. The AN discussion (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Conflict around Gun control) that you opened has only been open for two days. That's not long enough to form a consensus; we do not exclude users who work on Wikipedia only on the weekends by opening a consensus discussion on Tuesday and closing it on Thursday. Also, please read WP:FORUMSHOP. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

My point was that the question posed at AN is different than the question posed here. Should there be a moratorium on a redirect? Irrelevant to the question of if content is valid in whatever the ultimate article is. I freely admit a consensus has formed on the posed question (or at least that it is very unlikely the forming consensus would be overcome. Further, I made this DR, at the implied request of AndyTheGrump. [2] Who questioned why I asked for a moratiorium for dispute resolution, but had not yet made a DR request. Allowing this objtion to carry weight is allowing andy to have his cake and eat it too. "He isn't actually asking for DR!" "This request for DR is invalid!" Gaijin42 (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

As it says at the instruction at the top of the main DRN page, we cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. Posing a different question does not make it a separate dispute. The topic would have to be different (not about anything related to firearms), the page would have to be different (not Gun Control, Gun politics or any related page) and the disputants would have to be different (Not AndyTheGrump). If if the discussion at the other dispute resolution forum shares any one of those three aspects, the "we cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums" rule applies. Again, read WP:FORUMSHOP; I am not sending you there on a whim; I want you to understand the reasoning behind the policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a related discussion at Talk:Gun_control#DR. Also see my closing comments at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Gun Control. I will be glad to re-open the case with the existing comments intact once the AN discussion and any related discussions at other DR forums are closed.

I would also ask if anyone -- DRN volunteer or disputant -- objects to me volunteering to try to resolve this. The reasons I want to take this one are:

I have no involvement with or preexisting opinion on the disputed topic.
I am comfortable with dealing with controversial subjects (Abortion, Climate Change, Gun Control, Hitler, My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic...) where the volunteer is likely to end up being attacked no matter what he does.
There is a question of how to apply our content forking policy. Policy-based disputes tend to be especially interesting.
My style as a Dispute Resolution Volunteer is to keep the discussion organized and on topic, and to enforce a strict "talk about article content, not user conduct" policy in DRN cases. The existing discussions on this are all over the map and unlikely to result in any resolution without a more structured discussion.
There is a question about where this should be resolved. One of the functions of DRN is to get everyone to agree as to whether to try to resolve it at DRN or to move it to ANI, Arbcom, run an RfC, etc.

Please note that participation at WP:DRN is entirely voluntary, that DRN volunteers have, by design, zero authority outside of DRN, and that disputants are asked to voluntarily allow the DRN volunteer to guide the discussion while at DRN. Nothing bad will happen if anyone chooses to not participate. This allows us a bit more freedom to try different approaches. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Given recent postings at Talk:Gun control by Gaijin, I can see no point in continuing the narrowly-defined DR process currently stalled. The fundamental issue at the root of the dispute isn't just "Nazi's" - it is the extent to which a supposedly global article on firearms regulation should be dominated by the narrow perspectives of sections of the US gun lobby. Rather than accepting the comments from multiple uninvolved contributors at WP:AN that the article was a POV fork, Gaijin is now arguing for the inclusion of more material promoting the same viewpoint. This is of course untenable if the article is to offer a balanced perspective, as policy requires. If dispute resolution is to stand any chance of succeeding, it needs to deal directly with the fundamental issues leading to the dispute, and on that basis, I suggest that the existing DR be closed, and a new one be opened to deal directly with issues at the root of the debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Please don't try to argue your case here. (And everyone else, please don't respond to any attempts to argue a case here; I am counting on you to avoid temptation.)

The nature of DRN is that everyone gets an equal chance to make an initial statement (if you look carefully, you will see that this is really all the filing editor initially gets to do) and if you participate in a DRN case where I am the DRN volunteer, any argument you make in your initial statement about "dealing directly with issues at the root of the debate" will be one of the first things we discuss. This is true whether you make a statement in a re-opened case or file a new case. Let's wait until the AN discussion is closed, then decide. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Could use some help with maintenance

This discussion between Steve Zhang and The Earwig indicates to me that it may be awhile before we get the automation running again. Over the last week I've taken on the job of spotting when new subpages are added, titling them, transcluding them onto the main page, making sure every listed editor has been notified, and keeping the recently closed cases separated from the current ones. But I could use some help, especially on weekends when I sometimes don't edit very much. I checked about half an hour ago and believe that everything is up to date for the nonce, but may not be online for much longer today and maybe not at all tomorrow. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I can help. I often end up babysitting engineering tests at night or on weekends (California time) and have some time to kill. If anyone else pitches in on this, you might want to start by making the case name short and easy for users to type (copying an pasting the title of the main page (not talk page) where the dispute is happening before posting the notifications. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 56#Dispute resolution noticeboard for an idea that I am running up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes it... --Guy Macon (talk) 07:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts about DRN

Hi all. I've been thinking as of late, especially with the implementation of the sub paging and the difficulties with the changing of the bot. When DRN was first started, it was rather unorganised and as a result was somewhat ineffective, then we changed things and got closer to a "sweet spot" but now I worry that the further along we have gone, the more complex and rigid we have become, which goes against the initial reason I created this board. I think we should take a "back to basics" approach (though I haven't decided yet what this would mean) just to see how things go, and if indeed it is more effective. I am considering this as part of a partnership I am going to propose with the Mediation Committee, as lately their load has been extremely light, and if we can make DRN a place to resolve relatively simple disputes and bump up more difficult ones to MedCom, it might make DR more effective overall. I'm going to sleep on it, but I think that ditching the idea of subpaging would be the first step. Input from volunteers overall has been much less as of late (and no change has happened as a result of subpaging), and has been a gradual downturn since the start of Jan (or even before this). Other ideas here are welcome. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 13:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

One thing I think is that perhaps we shouldn't be so immediate to close cases that are more suited for a different venue. I wasn't here in the beginning, but it seems like it was intended to be more about directing people to the right place, though it's become much more focussed on mediating disputes. But the header still describes it as being a place to get directed to the right venue - which I think it should be, as well as a place to mediate disputes.

To me the quick-close procedure feels the opposite of friendly and welcoming, it's described as being 'closed as unsuitable', and it seems to me that it gives the impression of having come to the wrong place, when in actual fact this is exactly the right place - even if it's a conduct dispute or hasn't been discussed on the talk page I feel like we should be saying more 'here's what you should do' and less 'didn't you read the rules? You weren't supposed to bring this here'. I'm not suggesting that we ought to be expanding the range of cases we mediate, but I would rather make suggestions for where to go in the discussion section, give participants a chance to respond, and then close the case. CarrieVS (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with both Steven and Carrie. I recently closed a filing that I then reopened. Part of the reason I reopened it was that I felt I had declined it too quickly (even though it really didn't have an actual dispute) and wanted others to have the ability to look further. Perhaps what we need is a change in our guidelines about closing. Is it possible that all closings have a consensus? Like a separate section within the filing that all cases have when opened? Maybe a section titled: "Closing discussion". This would allow a discussion before all closings and make such less controversial. Now...the only thing that concerns me about that, is whether that complicates matters instead of improving them. But I do support the idea of getting back to basics, I tend to agree that the subpageing may not be an improvement, having seem it in action now and that the quick decline can be off putting and that instead of such declining we discuss it and form a consensus for it.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I oppose any further changes except to either go back to the methods we were using before the switch to subpaging or, alternatively, to make the subpaging work. As for the quick closes, I probably close more cases than anyone else. If you'll go back through my recent closes, you'll find that I almost always recommend another source for help. I do not generally recommend content noticeboards other than 3O, MedCom, and RFC, however. That's because most other noticeboards do not welcome disputes per se and, perhaps worse, except for RSN, you only have about a 50/50 chance of getting a response from a neutral third party at all. If we have a real problem here, it is the usual one: Not enough volunteers willing to frequently take cases (or who take them and then drop the ball halfway through). I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular (and especially not at anyone who is participating in this discussion), but there have been several failed cases recently where just that occurred. I'm very open for a discussion of the closing criteria, but I don't really think the quick closings are the #1 problem here (but I wouldn't would I?). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to approach this with an open mind, and while doing so consider the needs of participants as well as the needs of volunteers. We've made some progress since DRN has been started, but I feel we've gone too far. structure wise. I also think that quick closings of DRN threads is something we should shy away from, one came to mind I saw the other day (Third Perso-Turkic War) where it was closed due to discussion happening on the page before a volunteer opened the dispute. I think this would have been an opportunity to assess the situation and cool down any tension that had occurred, rather than proverbially slamming the door shut on them. I know this was not the intention, but I would have taken it this way if it was me. I think we should not take conduct disputes at face value, there may be underlying content issues that we can resolve that will result in the conduct issues dissipating. In the meantime, I'm going to roll back the change to sub paging (existing subpaged threads will stay as such until closed). TransporterMan, I've sent you an email, if you could take at your earliest convenience it would be most appreciated. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 04:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Closing discussion initiated by volunteer

I went ahead and made a bold addition to the Jedi dispute in the spirit of our recent discussion on not using quick declines. I have begun "Closing discussion initiated by volunteer Amadscientist". Thoughts. Feel free to bat me around abit on it if you feel strongly about it. ;-)--Amadscientist (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and if it stays open, unless there are any objections I could take that filing. I seem familiar with Sudo Ghost but can't recall how that is. If we have a strong conflict I would recuse myself, but I think the best venue is Non free content review where all discussion centers on these very issues, which can be extremely difficult to understand and determine how something is properly interpreted.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Recused myself in Skyfall, need a substitute volunteer

Just that. Please help, I've got the facts all teed up for you. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll take this. I had a read and, at first, I had an opinion of one way but after reading the arguments I'm now 50/50. It's an interesting discussion Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

section headings in DR

I notice someone went through and converted the "opening comments by" section from sections to using semi-colons for separation. This means it is no longer possible to edit one's own section alone, increasing the chance of edit conflicts. Is there a strong technical reason for this change? If not, I suggest going back to the sections for ease of use. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The opening comments sections are going away altogether. Steve Zhang did the semicolon conversion on the remaining subpaged cases so that — I think — the Table of Contents at the top of the main page would not be too long, but he's conked out right now and is not available to answer, but the following ping ought to get a clarification once he returns from the arms of Morpheus. @Steven Zhang: Is that right? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You're correct, this is indeed why I've done this. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 07:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Disclaimer

The role of Amadscientist is played by... --Mark Miller _{Just ask!} _WER _TEA _DR/N 08:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

C'mon, Amad. Mark Miller? Really? You might have well called yourself John Doe. If you're going to come up with a fake name, at least pick a good one. Best regards, Augustus Edward Rufus Cholmondeley-Featherstonehaugh (TALK) 13:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

(Actually, welcome, Mark, it's good to know (the real) you. — TM)

Checking in. Hamish Angus Whisky McHaggis ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I know huh. It is a very common name. :-)--Mark Miller _{Just ask!} _WER _TEA _DR/N 17:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not any of these people: Mark_Miller.--Mark Miller _{Just ask!} _WER _TEA _DR/N 17:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Getting back to basics proposal

Steven has been suggesting a "getting back to basics" approach to the DR/N and I really have to agree with that. There are several issues.

Formality - Editor complaints that formality of the noticeboard is far greater than AN or AN/I where editors are there to use the tools of SYOPS. Intimidating and confusing for the recipient. Far too often I hear about "the accused" or some other legal term that defeats the purpose of dispute resolution.

Success rate decline - Somehow we are not resolving as many disputes as we should be. One reason my be from too many quick declines or declining and sending to another venue, when DR/N could have dealt with the content dispute regardless of another venue being available.

Complicated - Form is too long, to complicated and too time consuming.

Stalled discussions - Every DR/N filing takes forever.....just to begin. This also has something to do with "formality" and "complicated"..you see, we are requiring that every single editor that is listed as involved make an opening statement before the discussion can be "opened" by a volunteer. This can take days or more just to get the amount of openings needed to begin. And those opening are so formal they can be intimidating and stressful and my be discouraging editors from participating.

I propose the following changes:

Reduce the formality ~~by removing opening comment requirements and section completely.~~ (Edit:this has already been Done) Alter notification to state that the discussion has begun and allow discussion to begin from the filings conception. Keep everything else the same on the form including the list of participants, and..
Forgo the bot operation for opening only and have the filing marked as open from the beginning.

Closing for other than a resolution should be discouraged unless the filing or discussion meets a set criteria..

Create a set criteria for closings

Set criteria to establish closings of different types like resolved, unresolved and wrong venue.

Create new status "Decline at this time" to replace "closed"

Create a template that could be used for volunteers to move a filing to another notice board, displaying the question or dispute for that location. One for each notice board. That way we don't just say, "take it to the Reliable sources noticeboard", we actually take it there for them. Give them notice first of course, but I think that would seriously help more editors.
Clarify resolution and how it is achieved. Many times I notice that the subject of the dispute is what volunteers center on, but miss the point that what we are trying to achieve is getting the editors to compromise...not on what to compromise on. We don't need to actually solve the problem. The editors are supposed to do that themselves for the most lasting resolution. So we should be aimed at getting the editors together, not telling them what the best route is. We all have our opinions and they are vital on DR/N but we should be reading the consensus discussion as closers and understand when a consensus has been reached that resolves the dispute itself...not all the "underlying" issues. Trying to solve everything can sometimes make things worse. Know when there is that actual moment when everyone agrees to do "something". Many times that something is either, inserting a piece of agreed on text, or an image or a source or excluding that section or passage or reference due to the guideline and policies.

The best way to achieve the above is probably create some basic information on a template that is given to each volunteer to read and understand about resolution itself and some other basic , important information.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of your points, but I think we need to get the technical side of the board working first as a priority before we start reworking the procedural side of things. I'd be in favour of keeping the subpaging if possible as it's made it much easier to track cases I'm involved in. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm absolutely exhausted, so I'll respond to this in the morning, but I note this discussion and will comment fully shortly. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 13:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

With all respect, I have to disagree in substantial part with Amad's points.

Steve has already removed the opening statement requirement and, thus, the requirement that all parties weigh in before starting DR. DRN did not originally have that, but it was added because volunteers were starting discussions before all the primary players in a dispute had joined in here. By doing so, this often becomes a near-useless dramaboard. (It's only near-useless because sometimes the editors who are engaged in the discussion here are the ones in the wrong and can be straightened out without the involvement of the other disputants.) Thus, not having the opening-statement-wait-for-everyone requirement requires a great deal more skill, experience, and professionalism on the part of volunteers to maintain control of the listing.
Quick closings other than for nonparticipation (which aren't quick and which we have already touched upon) come in these flavors: insufficient-discussion, mainly-conduct, and pending-in-other-forum. Those are set criteria already. Which of those would you propose to eliminate? Or is there another kind that I've missed?
The clarify resolution point is, at its root, suggesting ~~asking~~ that all we should do here is uncritically massage editors towards collaboration. I have two objections to that: First, it requires considerable skills at mediation and this is an entry-level board for dispute resolution volunteers. You don't even have to be autoconfirmed to sign up here and take on a case. Second, that's not even possible in real world. In real world mediation, criticism and evaluation by the mediator is a primary tool. I'll grant you that in a perfect Wiki-world that we ought to be trying to get people to collaborate — not compromise but collaborate — but this isn't the "Collaboration Resolution Noticeboard" nor the "Dispute Collabortion Noticeboard," but the "(a) Dispute (b) Resolution Noticeboard".
Automatically shifting cases to other noticeboards: As I've said above, "[M]ost other noticeboards do not welcome disputes per se and, perhaps worse, except for RSN, you only have about a 50/50 chance of getting a response from a neutral third party at all." We can do that, but we need to expect a lot of complaints or bounce-backs along the lines of, "You sent us there and nothing happened."
Success rate decline: This is not caused by formality or by quick closes but by one factor and one factor only: An insufficient number of active volunteers, especially experienced and — dare I say it — competent volunteers. Look right now at the number of cases currently listed which are open — they managed to get through the formality and quick closes just fine — which have no volunteer working on them, a volunteer who isn't paying attention and has allowed the case to stall, or which have other problems caused by the lack of a volunteer. Again, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular (especially those involved in this discussion): Folks work in DR for awhile and then move on to other Wiki-pursuits. Sometimes they come back and do a case or two, but they very rarely come back and work here week in and week out. As a result, there is an ebb and flow of volunteers. Our previous success in resolving cases was largely due to the big push for volunteers that Steve made leading up to Wikimania 2012 and that occurred with the opening-statement and quick-close structure already in place. Success in resolving cases comes with an adequate number of volunteers. So long as we don't have that, then cases are not going to get resolved. — And remove the opening statement and quick close critera if you really want to see the percentage of resolved cases plummet when we don't have enough capable volunteers.

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

"[T]hose involved in this discussion". That is the second time you have said that, so I take it you are referring to me. As someone who seems to want to avoid drama could you dispense with it all together and speak plainly as the rest of your well thought out responses.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You come within the group at whom I am not pointing fingers, but I wasn't not pointing fingers at you in particular, nor did I have you specifically in mind when I did not point fingers. Plain enough?

Said straightforwardly: I am not accusing, blaming, or criticizing you for anything, Amad, either directly or by either implication or omission, in your work here at DRN. I just said what I said above because I wanted to make sure that no one in this discussion thinks I'm talking about them, because I'm not. (And I talk this way in real life, too, it comes with being a lawyer for 35+ years; my spouse frequently wants to strangle me because of it.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I like the way you talk, but...I talk this way in real life as well and it comes from living for decades with individuals that sometimes forget that not having the same benefit of an education or position, doesn't always limit others from the discussion. Not you, but then my partner would like to strangle me for some of my wording as well. --Amadscientist (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: I've seen your response and thought over it a lot. I do have some concern that us removing the opening statements has the potential to cause the noticeboard to lose some of the control that we have gained by the implementation of the opening statement requirement. I am not suggesting we eliminate the idea that all should ideally weigh in before a discussion is opened, but I think enforcing this like we do now (requiring everyone one does before we will even consider opening it) delays potential resolution of a dispute, and the longer a dispute carries on for, the more likely it is to go stale. It also opens up the opportunity for people to stonewall, if there are 7 participants and one decides to not participate, does this mean we cannot proceed? I think that with the bot back in action and volunteers on board (which I am going to address below), any discussions that get out of control can be nipped in the bud, and removing the strict "all users must write opening statements first before this will be looked at" has the potential to resovle disputes faster (as long as we are attentive) and therefore have less cases that sit and rot.

With regards to the quick closings, I think we should, effective immediately, bin the mainly-conduct and insufficient-discussion ones, but with some conditions. Let me give a scenario. User A and User B are discussing changes that User A made on The weather in London. User B disagrees with an edit User A made, saying that the source is unreliable/content not good/etc etc and user A disagrees. Discussion eventually gets heated. User B files request at DRN saying "User A has been editing The Weather in London and the changes are bad because of xyz and they have been doing (insert behaviour here). Volunteer Z comes along and sees that User B is talking about User A and the "bad" conduct they have displayed, and closes the dispute as a conduct issue. However, the underlying content issue is still unresolved, and if this is sent to AN/ANI/RFCU, it will likely be referred back to a content venue. Thus, we have left the initial problem unresolved because we have assessed it at face value. The same goes for insufficient discussion ones. While it may not have been discussed on the talk page they're pointing to, it may have been discussed at another noticeboard/wikiproject/wiki page and so on. Let's ask them if there has been any discussions elswhere, and if not guide them back to the talk page, instead of slamming the door in their face. Same message, nicer execution.

On volunteering in general, more experienced volunteers are required, and the attrition of volunteers is something we need to address. I think that the idea of implementing some sort of badges system (like the Teahouse uses) as well as re-jigging the volunteer page (sort of like the hosts lounge, so volunteers can say a bit about themselves) may contribute to this. The creation of a rotating co-ordinator role could help with general organisation of DRN, too.

I think we should always try something once. The current method worked for a time, but as of now it has become less effective. Let's rethink, try out and see what we come up with. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 15:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Closing for lack of all parties: When closing a case with three or more parties for not having everyone weighed in, I try to always look to see if the missing parties are important to the case. If they're not, then I don't close it. By important I mean that their absence would be likely to jeopardize any solution worked out here at DRN. In a case where no one has weighed in but the listing party, I don't check, but I do try to take a look to see if there are some simple comments or observations that I can leave on the article talk page; I don't actually do so very often. I'm fine with trying it without the opening statements, but we need to be prepared to go back if it doesn't work. (And just how much back and forth can this venue stand?)

Sidebar/rabbit trail: Should participation in DR be entirely voluntary? I have considered making a proposal at the Dispute Resolution policy page saying that if an application for dispute resolution via DRN is made (and perhaps MEDCOM, but that's a more complicated issue) which meets the filing requirements of DRN that, in effect, the other editors involved in the dispute must either participate in the DR or thereafter refrain from involvement (editing the article or discussing) in the matter in dispute. Required participation would be limited to merely showing up at DRN and briefly stating your case. Once you've done that much, you don't have to do any more if you don't want to. This is an analogy to court-ordered mediation in civil lawsuits here in Texas. A court can order you to go to mediation and participate in good faith, but participation in good faith does not mean that you have to actually consider settlement: It means that you have to show up at the mediation, make an opening statement of your position, and then let the mediator (ordinarily in private, but always confidentially) talk to you about the strengths and weaknesses of your case. You are not required to make a good faith settlement offer or give good faith consideration to a settlement offer made by the other side. If you fail to do at least that much, after being given a full and fair opportunity to do so, you are in effect topic banned from that dispute (for how long ought to be discussed).

Mainly-conduct quick closes: I, at least, wouldn't close the case you give in your example because it's not mainly a conduct case. If that's what you're concerned about, then we just need to make it clear (though I thought we had already) that we only quick-close cases which are primarily conduct disputes. If, on the other hand, you're saying that we shouldn't close any case which has the slightest scrap of content issue involved, I'm not in favor of that at all.
Insufficient-discussion quick closes: I don't mind expanding the standard (or the volunteer instructions) to specifically allow the required discussion to take place other than at the article talk page. I always try to at least check the article talk page and the user's talk pages before closing a case for insufficient discussion, and I ordinarily try to check their contributions pages as well to see if it might have been somewhere else. If we're going to do that, however, I'd like to make a request: Change the listing form so that it specifically asks the listing party to list n' link all the places where discussion about the dispute has taken place, rather than putting the onus on the volunteers to beg that information out of the parties and concomitantly make it clear in the volunteer instructions that they can rely on that listing in accepting or closing a case without having to go searching for it as we do now.
Volunteers: No comments on those proposals.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that we should keep our minds open when thinking about changes we could make to DRN. If the removal of opening statements causes issues, we of course should consider re-implementation. Participation should always be voluntary. A major policy shift would be required to make it mandatory, or if someone declines to participate, then they must refrain from involvement. Worth discussing tho.
Regarding quick closes, I'm not asking that we take anything and everything. I ask that we discuss every thread before it is closed, even if on the face it looks like something we can't/shouldn't handle. You know what they say about assuming. Agree with adding a request to list all places a dispute has taken place. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 01:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:DRN#Talk:List of FC Seoul players

I closed this listing as unsuitable as it was primarily conduct based rather than content as well as lacking extensive discussion. The filing editor disagreed here: User talk:Cabe6403#DRN. Can another volunteer take a look and see if they arrive at the same conclusion? I'm looking at you guys User:TransporterMan & User:Amadscientist. Cheers Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

@Cabe6403: - I appreciate it you asking for further eyes, but seeing as the other user has reverted again I am going to take to ANI. Giant Snowman 12:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Village Pump discussion

There is a village pump discussion that pertains to this board in some small manner at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#No one can edit the same article for more than one month.--Mark Miller _{Just ask!} _WER _TEA _DR/N 21:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It is also on Jimbo Wales talk page.--Mark Miller _{Just ask!} _WER _TEA _DR/N 00:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Bias within the Tiger vs Lion page

Hi, I'm not a regular contributor to wikipedia and am not very familiar with the rules and structure of making wikipedia edits, but I do have a zoology degree and read extensively about zoology and biology. I found the above tiger vs lion page and it is written with a very strong bias and the content is written from a clearly amateur and uniformed perspective. I tried to add extra information but was refused and looking at the talk page found a number of other people had also tried to contribute less biased viewpoints and had also had their content refused. When i raised this issue on the talk page assuming good faith on the part of the editor(s) I was sometimes ignored sometimes dismissed with little discussion of the points i had tried to contribute. Having tried several times to make edits and to discuss the unfair nature of the editors of this page on the talk page it became quite evident that there was no interest whatsoever in allowing contributions that did not share the bias of the editor and that the prevailing attitude towards myself and other unbiased contributors was simply that we could be ignored as we lacked the authority to make changes. The page is genuinely poorly written, it is very evident that the writers lack the qualifications/knowledge to discuss this issue in an informed manner and the attention of absolutely any third party with a zoology background will be able to confirm this. So I was wondering what is the best way to approach this problem. Can somebody with a better understanding of wikipedia processes please help me.

Thank you NickPriceNZ (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to file a request here, please use the request form, listing all the other editors involved in the dispute, since requests made here on the talk page will not be answered. However, if you want general help with the article rather than help in negotiating out a specific dispute, you might consider making a request at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

DRN and MedCom working closer together

Hi all,

I've been in discussions with the Mediation Committee about the possibility of DRN and MedCom working closer together with us referring more complex disputes to them, and the process for us to do so being simplified. Below is the email I sent and the response I have received, which I have been given permission to post on-wiki.

“

Hi all,

I hope you are well. I've been doing some work on DRN again as of late and I had a look at MedCom and it seems that there has been a downturn in requests and accepted cases at MedCom for some time now, and even more so a reduction in successfully resolved cases, but this has not always been the case. While my activities in working on the development of dispute resolution has not been as prominent as of late, it is still something I am committed to working with. The committee has a lot of dispute resolution experience and I am hoping you would be open to discussing with me your thoughts on the potential factors that this has happened, and what could be done to make MedCom a more effective process. To start the conversation, what does the committee think of the idea that MedCom could take on the particularly tough cases from DRN that are referred to MedCom? There are some disputes that would benefit for a slower paced approach by a more experienced hand, but I would like to talk with you all about your thoughts and ideas as to how we can further improve dispute resolution.

Yours, Steven Zhang

”

and the response i received:

“

Dear Steven,

Thank you very much for your message. We have discussed your proposal for proactively referring stalled or complicated disputes from DRN to RFM, and unanimously agreed that sending these disputes to us is an excellent idea. Practically speaking, at present the committee has sufficient mediator time to accommodate an increased number of referrals from DRN to RFM (although I personally think it would be important to limit the number of referrals made in the near future – until we can evaluate whether the new approach is working and manageable). This can therefore be arranged with no further delay, in our view.

Given your prominent role at DRN, it seems appropriate for you personally to create an appropriate mechanism through which DRN volunteers can refer cases directly to us. You may like to require that DRN volunteers receive an okay from one or two other volunteers before making a referral; this would help ensure that the dispute is not being unnecessarily referred to formal mediation (which can be a time-consuming process for disputants and mediators). However, this is merely a suggestion for you to consider, and not a requirement of ours.

At our end, all referrals would without exception have to be subjected to our usual vetting process – that is, they would have to come through RFM, and not be opened immediately as an accepted case. However, as always we would give our most earnest consideration to RFMs referred by an uninvolved party like a DRN volunteer, and requests that have unsuccessfully went through DRN would always be given higher and special consideration. Additionally, we could arrange for a template to be made for the RFM pages of "official" referrals, so that RFMs that have been referred by the DRN volunteer are clearly marked as such. (I also imagine that such templates would help to emphasise to the disputants that their dispute is being escalated through the DR process – and so, perhaps, improve their conduct and willingness to co-operate.)

Please let us know if you would like provision to be made in the RFM filing system for formal referrals, and if you have any other points of order to raise. Otherwise, you have our full blessing to send us as many cases as we can handle; all of us are certainly happy to help you guys out.

You also have my permission to distribute or publish this message, on-wiki or by e-mail to other DRN volunteers, if necessary.

For the Mediation Committee, Anthony (AGK)

”

I think this is a good thing. I am still thinking over ways that we can refer disputes to MedCom. I've implemented the change to the DRN volunteer layout and I am finishing off some of the other changes to DRN. Input is appreciated here. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 04:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Great work. I think this is a good step forward in streamlining the DR process. @TransporterMan: as an active MedCom member as well as an active DRN member you'd be in a good position to talk about the link and how to structure it. Thoughts? Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 12:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi all. As discussed in the committee's earlier e-mail, a template for these referrals has been created: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Template/DRN

File:Yes

This request has been referred to formal mediation by a DRN volunteer. The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (DRN) is a stage of the dispute resolution process that provides impartial assistance to content disputes. This dispute has been given extensive assistance by DRN, but that assistance has failed to lead to a resolution. Under a standing agreement between the mediation and DRN teams, the dispute has therefore been referred directly here. The usual process for requesting mediation must still apply, but special consideration will be given by the Mediation Committee to whether it can assist the disputants in this case.

Message added by ~~~~, the DRN volunteer.

When a DRN volunteer wishes to refer a case directly to us under the terms of this system, the request page should be marked with this template (for informational purposes) in the following manner:

{{Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Template/DRN}}

However, please remember that this system is not intended to allow disputes to skip the DR process entirely; we will expect referred disputes to have been subjected to the full course of DRN efforts before being referred to us. Thanks, AGK [•] 11:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks AGK, can you clarify the procedure for referring. If I understand correctly, a DRN case has failed to be resolved and is suitable for referring to MedCom: The DRN volunteer closes the DRN then do they create the RfM and add that tag or is it up to the participants to file and then the DRN volunteer tags it with the template you've given us? Cabe 6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 12:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I am sure Steve will write up a handy guide for you DRN volunteers to follow, but to be clear it would be the former: the DRN volunteer would file the RFM, typically having checked with the disputants before filing that they want to use formal mediation. AGK [•] 13:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

If I can answer without putting words in AGK's mouth, I think you have it exactly right. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)