Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 19

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 15

←

Archive 17

→

Request for Feedback

I would appreciate comments from other volunteer editors as to whether I was reasonable in the following:

1. Hatting comments about another editor concerning Emina (poem).

2. Closing a thread filed today where I couldn't figure out exactly what the issue was, but it did not appear to be an article content issue.

3. Comments to an IP editor concerning a new case.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Hatting the comments was a good idea per policy but it might be worthwhile to examine if there is any truth to the alleged pattern of editing. If so it is unlikely there will be any resolution here and ANI might be in order. I do however admit to a certain cynicism when it comes to Balkan ethnic conflict and any resolution thereof.

Closing the thread was, in my opinion, valid per policy on not handling behavior based matters. Also, I am not sure it was not a continuation of the OP's bad behavior since they started by outing the other party again.(I redacted that but maybe revdels would be appropriate if the single name is identifiable.)

I have seen similar comments made to IP editors and agree with them, but I think everyone should register. When coming from a position of authority such advice tends to re-enforce the idea IPs are second class editors which by Wikipedia policy they are not. Jbh (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

As to the comments attacking the other editor, you say that it might be worthwhile to examine if there is truth to the alleged pattern of editing. It is my assumption that someone else should make that review. Since I accepted the case as moderator, I am neutral as long as the case is in moderation. If the comments are true and there is a nationalistic pattern, ANI isn't necessary because AE is available, and I have more confidence in the uninvolved admins at AE than in the "community" at ANI to deal with disruptive editors fairly. Remember that the Balkan region is subject to discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC. I think that Wikipedia policy about IP editors is cockeyed, in that they really should be second-class editors (and maybe you do too), but a cockeyed policy is still a policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from wanting to maintain your neutrality, I was thinking of looking into the allegations more as a way to get an idea of whether the dispute may be intractable or the tip of a lager problem rather than as a prelude to reporting a participant. You are right, AE is definitely a better forum than ANI. I had not thought of the DS in the topic area.

For my own knowledge, if I ever run across a similar situation here, do you think it would be OK for someone mediating a DRN thread to give formal DS notice to all of the parties and explain it? Something like "All editors working in the 'Foo' topic should know that the Arbitration Committee has placed all articles in this topic area under WP:Discretionary sanctions. As part of my responsibility here I need to make sure you are formally notified of these. I have placed or will soon place a notice on your talk page as required by the Arbitration Committee. This notice does not imply any wrong doing on your part and is just part of the dispute resolution process." or some such. My thought is this would prepare the dispute for the next step of dispute resolution and let the parties know of a way to address the behavior issues that can not be addressed here but I can see how it might be seen as confrontational as well. What do you think?

As to the specific case you are working on I think your idea to move it towards a RfC is the right way to go. In my opinion it is very unlikely those editors will come to a compromise. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of a volunteer here both accepting a case and notifying the editors of discretionary sanctions. That seems to be trying to start two dispute resolution threads, here and at AE, in parallel. As to notifying them after dispute resolution fails, that is plausible. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Jbh (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I failed the thread after the first editor wouldn't stop complaining about the second editor. If either of them wants to take the other one to Arbitration Enforcement, they can, but possibly should read the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not think there was ever much of a chance of compromise there. When one side is denying the identity of the other it tends to get people's back up. It is amazing to me how is a microcosm of all of the world's conflicts. If two, presumably educated, people can not agree on what to call the language of a dead poet what chance is there for anything else? Oh well... good try though. Jbh (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

FAQ Q9 and Q10

I would like to edit the answer to Q9 to include Arbitration Enforcement as a vehicle for reporting conduct issues when the conduct involves a topic area that is subject to discretionary sanctions. I would like to edit the answer to Q10 to give examples of other dispute resolution mechanisms, to include 3O, RFM, RFC, BLPN and other specialized noticeboards, and ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

That is a good idea. It is likely a lot of editors do not know what AE is or what it is for. ANI is very 'public' and free wheeling so not much outside of very basic disputes seem to be managed by it. AE has much stronger controls and a more 'professional' group who 'work' there. It might be worthwhile to mention at AE that they might see an increase in traffic from newer users. From what I have read at AE it is not the first time around the block for most of the disputants there and most of them know how things work. This is unlikely to be the case with users bringing fresh problems there. Jbh (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding FAQ #9, conduct RfCs are now defunct. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 21:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, conduct RFC/U has been turned off. Ten years ago it had a real purpose, which was to provide the input to User:Jimbo Wales to request to ban a user, prior to ArbCom and community bans. Recently its usual effect was simply to increase existing anger by providing a structured means for discussion of complaints against the editor. It was also remarkably rigid for Wikipedia, resulting in arguments about the rigid rules about it. If it is mentioned, I will delete it. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Q9 doesn't mention RFC/U. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

"Conduct disputes should be directed to conduct RFC or formal arbitration.", I'll go ahead and take it out. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 15:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Done Kharkiv07 ^Talk 15:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. It appears that the reference to conduct RFC was taken out a few months ago. In any case, it isn't there now, which is okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Case Request Made While Logged Out

It appears that a case request that I closed yesterday was opened from an IP address, but it then appears that a registered editor asked me for advice on what to do next. It appears that this is a registered editor who frequently edits while logged out, probably out of ignorance of how to stay logged in or failing to check whether he has logged in. This is one more reason to be cautious about trying to resolve controversies involving IP editors. Not only may multiple IP addresses be the same person, because IP addresses change, but an IP address and a registered account may be the same person. (There is even the fact that the same IP address may be multiple people, even within the course of a day. Vandal edits from an IP address assigned to a school are not necessarily the same student. The school server may be reusing the IP addresses. It doesn't change should be done, which is usually semi-protection of the article.) The good-faith assumption is that the editor is sloppy, but an alternate explanation in some cases could be that an editor could make comments from an IP address to show support. (It is true that that is a form of sockpuppetry, and it is also true that a good mediator should focus more on the content than on the apparent number of contributors.) That is just another reason why we should be cautious in accepting cases involving IP addresses. My own thinking is that if there are two or more registered editors, IP editors should be able to participate, but with no expectation of waiting for their comments, etc. Thoughts from other volunteers? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I've thought long and hard about this for the very reasons that you raise and have considered proposing that we just not accept cases from IP editors, but have always decided against it. We're here to resolve disputes, so long as we can do so in a manner which is in the best interests of the encyclopedia. And the Wikipedia community has decided again and again that IP editing, notwithstanding the problems you mention, is going to be regarded as being acceptable and in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Until the community changes its mind about that, I think we have the obligation here to deal with it regardless of the difficulties that it may cause. That's not to say that we can't take a different position (or that we can; to do so would be controversial), but we cannot really fulfill our mission of resolving disputes if disputes involving IP editors — which can be real disputes — are forbidden here. And, on the other hand, we're all volunteers here and no volunteer has to take or deal with a case that he or she does not care to deal with. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that the community has decided again and again to allow IP editing. I think that the community considers itself powerless to address the decision that was made on Day One to allow IP editing. I would say that the issue of IP editing will continue to be an awkward one, and that only the WMF can do anything conclusive about it, and they probably have other things to deal with. I don't think that User:TransporterMan and I disagree. I didn't say that we shouldn't accept disputes from IP editors or disputes involving IP editors, only that we should be cautious about them. I notice that a request from an IP editor has not been opened in several days. One of the real problems with IP editors is that some IP addresses change (even though some IP editors know for a certainty that their IP address is static). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLPN

Should we add a statement to our policies for accepting disputes that we will not accept a dispute that is currently pending at one of the other specialized noticeboards, such as the biographies of living persons noticeboard? I closed a case as premature due to inadequate talk page discussion and due to failure to identify and notify the other editors. The filing party then asked me for further advice, including why the article was locked. The article was page-protected, of course, because the filing party and others had been edit-warring. However, in review, I found that the article is also being discussed at WP:BLPN. Should we state more clearly that we do not take an issue that is pending at any of the specialized noticeboards? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't the filing party who contacted me. Oops. Either it was the filing party editing logged out, or the editor who contacted me was one of the editors who had been edit-warring with IPs. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I still think that a statement that we do not handle a discussion that is also being handled at BLPN may be useful. Discussions about biographies of living persons are often contentious. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The only time that we should definitely close a request due to pending discussions elsewhere is if the other discussion is at a DR process: 3O, MEDCOM, RFC, or at a quasi-DR process which has a built-in resolution system such as XfD, RM, maybe one or two others (e.g. the various COPYVIO boards). Noticeboards such as RSN, NPOVN, ORN, and others are advice forums which don't really have any authority to do anything and which are often very slow to respond, and where discussion can dribble and drabble on, which makes completion there an iffy thing to determine. BLPN kind of bridges the gap between those two kinds of noticeboards because things reported there sometimes are things which need an immediate responsive action by a third party (that is, BLPREMOVE situations), but those are not the kind of discussions there which ordinarily drag on at BLPN. All in all, I think we're fine with what we have, but would also note that it's within a volunteer's "unwritten" discretion to close (or put on hold) a dispute here if it appears that significant progress in the discussion or in resolving the dispute is being made anywhere. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with T man that we have the that general guideline (for practical purposes) but its really up to the discretion of the moderator or DRN coordinator. All of the forums are so different its hard to make a hard fast rule for all of them. Discussions at BLPN are usually over within 48 hrs. So I would not mind that unless it was very contentious and dragged on several days. If its ANI I will almost always close the DRN unless the ANI is resolved quickly and the I'll request and Admin to close the ANI thread so I can proceed with the DRN. It just depends.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Specialized Noticeboards, etc.

The dispute resolution mechanisms that are available in Wikipedia include multiple specialized noticeboards, such as the BLP noticeboard, the reliable source noticeboard, the neutral point of view noticeboard, the original research noticeboard, and the fringe theory noticeboard. I assume that a dispute should not be discussed at DRN if it is also being discussed at a specialized noticeboard, not so much because of the rule against forum shopping, as because that results in split discussions that don't address each other. I assume that it is a good idea, although not required, for a would-be moderator to check those noticeboards briefly if, based on the subject matter, the topic appears to be a reasonable one for one of those noticeboards (although any content issue that can be discussed at the specialized noticeboards without a moderator can also be discussed here with a moderator). Is that correct, that parallel discussions here and a specialized noticeboard are deprecated? Can a topic be moved from a specialized noticeboard (closing that thread) in order to request a moderator here? Can a topic be moved from here to a specialized noticeboard? (If a topic is properly defined in being filed here, it should be clear whether it is about a BLP, involves validity of sources, involves neutrality of POV, is about fringe status, etc. If a topic is poorly defined when filed here, of course, it is likely to be closed as poorly framed.) Am I correct that specialized noticeboards do count as dispute resolution, and so overlap of mechanisms should be avoided?

On another question, am I correct that if a thread is filed at WP:ANI that involves a discussion here, either the ANI thread or the discussion here should be shut down?

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't most of this answered in the responses in the WP:BLPN section, above, on this page? See Keithbob's and my answers there. ANI is a toss-up; most DRN volunteers will close a case if there's an ANI, some (including me) will (usually) not. Split discussions are a part of life here; there's nothing to keep disputants from continuing to discuss at the article talk page, their user talk pages, or elsewhere. They usually don't, but on particularly hot or multiparticipant discussions it sometimes happens. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Template Talk Pages

Am I correct that, if there is a dispute about a template, discussion should be on a template talk page before coming here? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I was also under the impression that it's user talk page conversation is acceptable... is it? This isn't referring to that case you closed, even if talk comments where acceptable that wasn't sufficient Kharkiv07 ^Talk 00:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Rider Ranger47 just closed the Vic Dibitetto request as premature, saying that there had not been adequate discussion on template talk pages. While I agree that closing was appropriate due to inadequate prior discussion, I don't see any discussion of templates. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

He copied your last close verbatim. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 16:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

In other words, he made a new volunteer mistake. Okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

User Talk Pages

User:Kharkiv07 raises the question of whether discussion at user talk pages is a substitute for discussion on an article talk page. My own thinking would be that it should not be a substitute, because there may be other editors besides those who discussed on their user talk pages. At least, if there was discussion only on user talk pages before starting dispute resolution, the moderator should post to the article talk page that moderated discussion is taking place. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I could certainly be wrong, for whatever reason that was just my impression. You do, however, bring up good points, perhaps we should just continue with a restriction to the article talks. Perhaps when we open a case and/or receive a case that will eventually be opened we should leave a notification on the article's talk page? Kharkiv07 ^Talk 13:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I've always been fine with the discussion being at user talk pages and our house rules (see the main page header) say that the discussion must only be on "a" talk page. (And I'm pretty sure that it once said "the article talk page", but we changed it because most volunteers were willing for it to be elsewhere.) The important thing is that it's happened not where it's happened because the main purpose of the discussion rule is to maintain the ideal of the encyclopedia that content matters be resolved through discussion rather than an appeal to authority. It's looking to prevent editors from hollering for help as soon as they have any resistance and to force them to try to work it out rather than calling in the cavalry. What we're looking for is a effort to get down to brass tacks on the content, making arguments which are at least minimally better than "it ought to be there" and "no it shouldn't". The arguments don't have to be good arguments or arguments in keeping with Wikipedia policies and practices, they've just got to have some kind of substance beyond "I like it" and "I don't like it". If they've at least made an effort to do that, with all behavioral allegations and posturing ignored, then by my lights they've satisfied that ideal and I don't much care where they've done it. Best regards, yer friendly neighborhood TransporterMan (TALK) 16:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay. If there has been adequate discussion at talk pages, whether or not it was reasonable, if the editors actually engaged in some sort of dialogue and have a content issue, we can take it. The job of the volunteer does include ignoring (and if necessary warning) the "behavioral allegations and posturing", and the volunteer can fail the thread if the editors won't stop alleging and posturing. I do think that, if the discussion was on user talk pages rather than article talk pages (or template talk pages for a template dispute, etc.), there must be a mention of the ongoing discussion on the primary article talk page so that any other editors can take part. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:DRN, I've never seen it used but that seems to serve our purposes. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 16:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I saw that template used once. There doesn't seem to be a consensus here as to whether its use is required or merely encouraged. Maybe it should be mentioned in our procedures. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It would seem to me that its best use would be in the talk page thread rather than the heading where the regulars rarely look.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I have rewritten Template:DRN-naotice to make sense to be posted on an article talk page, my draft is User:Kharkiv07/DRN-Talk there. Tell me what you think. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 21:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

That looks good. I assume that that will not replace {{subst:DRN-notice}}, which is placed on the user talk page of an editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Correct, and it's been transferred to Template:DRN-talk, and I do plan to nominate Template:DRN for deletion. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 23:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I've used it at Talk: Female genital mutilation. I am not entirely happy with how it displays. Did I do something wrong? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Lets remove the frame. It gives to much emphasis on the template.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean. Let me take a quick look and I will return for some clarification.Mark Miller (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok its all fixed. And I apologize for the last edit to the template. There was a mix up in the coding with the template and when attempting to edit the section it opened the template to edit, not the talk page section. So...I accidently added the sub template to the template page. LOL! Only funny in...that was part of the problem with the template itself. Everything is fixed but I propose we not delete the older template. The lack of use is certainly because it was never added to the instructions and doing so and simply giving the option to use either the DRN talk or Template DRN. Keeping both and giving editors a choice or option is always a better way of handling these situations in my opinion. We need more tools not less and there doesn't appear to actually be a consensus for deciding that templates are rarely seen by regulars. The talk page pops up at the top of the page and you have to scroll down or use the TOC to get to discussions. It might be better to use the main Template DRN for more active disputes or where the talk page itself is more active. I like the new template. It is a good option to have but we do have other templates and we must at least be sure and not instruct or guide DRN editors to over template disputes. One on the top of the page, one in the discussion on the talk page and one to every editor involved is over kill.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I helped write the DRN header. I added that specific criteria about talk pages on October 6, 2012 with the edit summary "If others feel this is not needed it can be removed but we are having too many filings that have little to no discussion prior to filing". The bases for this criteria is policy based and is taken from the original form DRN used to have, that made it a requirement to answer the question in regards to previous, extensive discussion on "a" talk page. This has bases in a number of places in policy, guidelines and BRD. While there was never a discussion on my adding the content the header (giving it merely silent consensus), there is a consensus on the criteria itself. In fact there was a discussion on this subject that same month in 2012 between Guy Macon, Steven Zhang and TransporterMan on October 25 "Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.". on the particulars of the form question.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I would still prefer forcing the user to type "yes" to a carefully-worded question about recent, extensive article talkpage discussion. And while I am dreaming, I would also like the form to only allow case names that are exactly equal to existing Wikipedia pages (not talk pages, which screws up the pagelinks section). This will happen right after Wikipedia officially declares me to be the new Wikimedia Dalek Supreme... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, far worse than the question (which needs improvement) is what comes up when you click the "Not yet" button on the first page of the filing form. The last paragraph on the page that comes up says, "If you have already tried to discuss this issue already and have received no response from others, you may go back to the previous page and file a request - but this must only be done if you have attempted to discuss the issue first." We absolutely do not follow that rule. The source for that page is at MediaWiki:Gadget-DRN-wizard.js, but only admins and editors with the editinterface bit can edit it. If we're in agreement that it needs to be gone, then perhaps we can ask our old friend Mr. Stradivarius to change it for us. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the last paragraph from the page that appears when you click "Not yet". I've also stopped the script from producing blank {{User|}} invocations, which always annoyed me. To create sensible headings, the best way might be to have one box for the location of the dispute, and a separate box for the location where discussion has taken place. Alternatively, we could automatically detect the subject page from the talk page name, but this wouldn't work if the discussion was on a noticeboard or something. As for encouraging users to actually start a talk page discussion, instead of going to the start of the form when users click "Start over", how about dumping them back at WP:DRN? At the moment, they only have to click "Start over" and "Yes, it has" to continue if they've admitted to not having any discussion. Returning them to WP:DRN ought to make it a little clearer that we're serious about requiring discussion. If anyone wants any wording tweaks, then just suggest them here and I will add them to the script. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the removal, Mr. Stradivarius. What about having no button at all on the "Not yet" page at all, making it just a dead end? I'm concerned that taking them back to the main DRN page will encourage manual filings not using the filing form. Also, @everyone, is there any interest in having a link on that page to my Responding to a failure to discuss essay? On the header matter, I'm a little confused; are you talking about the case header, Mr. Stradivarius, not the page header? If it's the case header I like the removal of the blank users, but though I'm open to other improvements I'm also pretty much okay with the way that it is now. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Female Genital Mutilation - Pending RFC

I concur with User: Guy Macon that moderated discussion should proceed in spite of a pending RFC. This is technically against two related rules, that we cannot accept a case when another dispute resolution mechanism, RFC, is in progress, and that RFC outranks DRN. I would say that this is justified as a case of ignore all rules, a policy that I normally dislike. The real problem is that the RFC is problematic. It makes a non-neutral statement, and does not ask a question, and may not be capable of being closed with consensus. In this case, moderated discussion is more likely to result in consensus than is a poorly formed RFC. Comments from other volunteers? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm involved in this content discussion, and raised the complaint that DRN shouldn't be taking a case when an RFC is active. Why not tell the OP to close the RFC if they would like to pursue DRN instead? That would solve it. Zad68 17:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I though of asking that, but I wondered whether it might be interpreted as taking sides. Even in DRN cases where it is blindingly obvious who is right (and I am not saying that this is or is not one of those cases) I find that the best way to resolve the dispute is to carefully examine all the evidence and fairly evaluate both side's claims. People often take being told that they are not going to win a lot better if they see that their treatment was scrupulously fair. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Guy I really can't at all see how making the purely procedural request that the OP stop an RFC that you've already described as one that "cannot possibly resolve this content dispute because it is lacking a neutrally-worded and specific question" would be perceived as taking sides. Zad68 18:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Closed per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive271#RfC vs. DRN. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Zad68 13:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record: As the current coordinator, I've been staying out of this issue and letting it just play out because I was involved with this dispute at EAR and at the filing editor's talk page. Not so much as to become a party to the dispute, but more than I should be to be involved as a neutral party here. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

TransporterMan, thank you for commenting. I'm puzzled by what's happening. PolenCelestial, an account with 162 edits (55 to articles), wanted to make an edit for which no reliable source exists. The article is an FA and is carefully written and sourced. When the sourcing requirements were explained, PC responded by opening discussions in multiple venues, including an RfC, which should have been allowed to run. Instead, Guy allowed this to start (against DRN rules), and is now making suggestions of his own, including moving material out of the FA to one of its terrible daughter articles. [1] He's welcome to make suggestions as an editor on talk, but using this process to do it seems inappropriate.

I left a comment on the DRN [2] because I didn't want to be discourteous, but it seems to have involved me in a process that I feel makes no sense, so I'd prefer to withdraw. If anyone wants to add something to the article, they need good sources and preferably some understanding of the issues and the sourcing policies, in which case I don't foresee a problem. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 15:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Participation is completely voluntary, and anyone is free to withdraw at any time. You can also ask me to recuse myself and turn the case over to another volunteer, at which point I would ask the advice of the other DRN volunteers and go with the consensus.

Making suggestions is a legitimate activity of a DRN volunteer. All you have to do is express opposition and we will search for another solution that is acceptable to all.

It is my considered opinion -- and the opinion of at least one other DRN volunteer -- that ignoring and then closing this RfC was a legitimate exception to our general rule.

While we have strict rules regarding talking only about article content and not user conduct in the DRN cases, we may want to think about a similar rule on this talk page. It does nobody any good to complain about a user's behavior in a forum where we purposely have no power to sanction users.

I would hope that you and others would decide to give the DRN process a chance instead of giving up at the very start, but that is your choice to make. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

One of the reasons people are reluctant to write FAs is the difficulty of maintaining the quality after they've been promoted. People arrive with no knowledge of the issues, no reliable sources, something they've read somewhere and want to be true for whatever reason. The dispute-resolution processes shouldn't be used to help those people reduce article quality and require writers to jump through hoops. Anyone wanting to add to the article, please bring a good source to the table. I don't want to be unhelpful, but there really isn't anything else to say. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 16:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Procedural question: How many parties are for inclusion of the content and how many are against? If it is clear that a new editor (registered in 2014) that is unfamiliar with policy and procedure is the only editor requesting the addition of this content....it is not a dispute. A situation where one editor refuses to accept consensus is a filibuster and is part of Wikipedia:Gaming the system under The meaning of "gaming the system". There appears to be, at the very least, some perception that the editor is the single contributor that wants this content and against a number of policies and guidelines as well as in a manner that goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. Perhaps we should look closer at the participation level to determine if the case should be kept open. If a consensus already exists, there really is no dispute. Thoughts?--Mark Miller (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Mark, that's exactly what the situation is. PC wants to make an edit based on poor sources that he found in another (very poor) WP article. He was supported, as I recall, by another account that was two days old. It isn't a legitimate content dispute, not to mention that PC has barely edited since filing the DRN. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 16:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I recommend this DRN be closed as disruptive and lacking a true dispute. One editor does not make a dispute. I do however, acknowledge at the same time, that I have opened such a case before myself. It turned out to be a "one on one" between myself, as mediator and the filing editor. It was my hope that a quick DRN could demonstrate to the editor that they were in the wrong. Nothing new came out of it and was closed soon afterwards. If kept open, I hope that the DRN, has a positive effect and that Guy Macon can help the editor understand our guidelines, policies and procedures better. This is only my personal recommendation and of course would not object if the request remained open. I have left a message on the editors talk page to address my concerns with their arguments so I would recuse myself from participating.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I think SV brings up a good point, as does Mark. This isn't an actual dispute beyond one editor not listening to the reasons given. I'm also disinclined to participate now, the DRN starter seems to have left anyway, and I will be traveling this weekend. I'll see if anything is happening by, say, Monday, but otherwise I don't see it as a good use of time. Zad68 20:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I wrote an essay on this topic at WP:1AM which, I believe, nicely refutes by example the assertion that "one editor does not make a dispute". Other than that, I am in complete agreement with Mark Miller's comments above. Now I am wondering why multiple editors want to stop this DRN case before it starts. Assuming that you are correct about who is right and who is wrong (I cannot comment on that and still act as a neutral party who only addresses the evidence) I cannot help but ask how these editors know ahead of time that it couldn't possibly be true that a "quick DRN could demonstrate to the editor that they were in the wrong" or that it couldn't possibly happen that "the DRN has a positive effect and that Guy Macon can help the editor understand our guidelines, policies and procedures better." I wish that I had been given a chance to do that.

Nonetheless, I cannot help resolve a DRN case where multiple participants are not willing to even try, so unless I am given a compelling reason to do otherwise I plan on waiting 24 hours and then closing this case as failed. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Who are the "multiple participants" that are not willing to even try? Sarah has tried, and has spent a considerable time writing a very detailed and polite response in the DR case, in addition to similar on article talk. Is there anything that you think falls short of what should be done? Isn't DR supposed to help the encyclopedia? Johnuniq (talk) 04:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

"I left a comment on the DRN because I didn't want to be discourteous, but it seems to have involved me in a process that I feel makes no sense, so I'd prefer to withdraw" seems pretty clear to me. What should have happened is that, after the opening statements, we have a discussion and attempt to come to a resolution. I spent several hours crawling through all of the user and article talk page comments and reviewing edits, and I have a list of claims (I cannot say by who at this point and remain neutral) that, in my opinion, violate various Wikipedia policies. I would have liked to be allowed to calmly explain our policies and, one would hope, get the editor(s) in question to "see the light". If that failed (as often happens) I would have closed the case as failed. I don't care what happened elsewhere. *I* haven't tried to resolve the content dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Guy, I do appreciate your stepping in to help, but as we fundamentally disagree about the procedure, the best way forward at this point might be for someone uninvolved to close it.

This was a minor issue that wasn't well suited to DRN. PolenCelestial, an occasionally used account, arrived with the view that the UN can't be trusted. [3] He linked to this anti-Islam website, which promotes a conspiracy theory about how the UN is covering up the truth about FGM in Indonesia and Malaysia.

He wanted to use some non-RS he had found in Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country, plus his own calculations, to "correct" the UN. [4][5] Instead of letting his RfC run (which would have settled the matter, because it was clear that his sources were poor), this DRN was opened in parallel, and you extended it to cover other issues. [6] We need to draw a line under it, although if you want to make the same suggestions on talk, I don't mind discussing them with you there. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 14:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree about the RFC. The RFC would not have settled the matter, because the RFC was so poorly written that it would not have been capable of being closed with rough consensus. Either the closer would close the RFC with no consensus because it was malformed, or the closer could exercise a supervote and find, in his or her own judgment, that the sources were no good, but that would be subject to a close review. The RFC would not have settled anything because the RFC was poorly stated. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

There first should have been an RSN to determine reliability of the sources used to cite the challenged passages or changes. I don't see where that was done. FGM was fairly recently promoted to FA, Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Female_genital_mutilation/archive2. Considering the scrutiny it takes to be promoted to FA, the same scrutiny should now apply to any additions or changes to the article. I recommend opening an RSN regarding the sources cited and see what happens there. If that doesn't bring results, then initiate a properly formatted RfC. Atsme☯^Consult 22:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

While RSN would have been a reasonable place to start, DRN was also a reasonable place to start. What we have here is either (I have my private opinions but I am not saying which) [A] a single editor ignoring our rules about sourcing and another editor (newly registered but reasonably experienced) agreeing that he/she has a point or [B] pretty much everyone else involved ignoring our rules about sourcing and dismissing the second editor for no apparent reason.

This is something that I believe I could have helped resolve if not for parties giving up before I could even try. I had worked out a plan which involved first seeing if we could compromise on a shorter section and moving the details to a related page, then examining the claims made by both sides that they were trying to get back to the FA version, and finally examining in detail the most recent edit/revert. A few pointed questions such as "how do you reconcile that opinion with passage X in policy Y" would have quickly smoked out who it was that is following policy (not just by me giving my opinion on that question, but by confronting the parties with the actual wording of Wikipedia policy). This should have either resulted in one side "seeing the light" or one side rather obviously refusing to follow policy, which would no doubt lead to ANI being able to deal with the behavior issue without any question about the content issues.

DRN is a good place to start when dealing with content disputes. We require extensive talk page discussion before filing, but we do not require going to another noticeboard first. The DRN volunteers are experienced in determining which cases should be closed and sent to other DR venues. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Guy, I think you may have misunderstood what the issue was. No one was trying to get back to a previous version, or asking that sections be removed. One little-used account tried to add poorly sourced claims to prop up an anti-Islam, anti-UN conspiracy theory. That's it. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 01:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that if you are right I will not be able to show him/her that he/she is wrong by examining the evidence and if you are wrong I will not be able to show you that you are wrong by examining the evidence. You have arbitrarily decided that DRN cannot possibly resolve this content dispute and withdraw before it starts. You are of course completely free to do exactly that -- participation is voluntary and DRN volunteers purposely have zero authority -- but I am not required to agree with your decision. And I have quotes from both sides where they claim that the FA version supports their position. They can't both be right and it is an easy thing to check. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Spanish political colors

That's the quickest failed thread I've seen. I would have tried one more time to reason with the editor who said that there was nothing more to say, but taking the editor at his or her word that discussion was finished was reasonable. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be this be closed as a refusal to participate, as opposed to failed? Kharkiv07 (T) 13:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Does it matter? If it does, I think that failed is right, because the editor went through the motions of participation in the case before saying that he or she had nothing more to say. The next step, since content dispute resolution has failed, is WP:ANI if the problem persists. I doubt that the community at WP:ANI cares why WP:DRN didn't resolve the case. If they do anything, it will be for edits against consensus, not for how there was a failure to achieve consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I will observe one more anomaly. It appears that the volunteer asked a question, and an editor answered it, within the box after the case was closed. I don't think that is entirely proper. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Three points:

I agree with the close, but it should have been a general close rather than a failure and I've changed that and left a note on the volunteer's talk page to explain why I did it with that one, but not with Guy's case just above (q.v. if you're interested). We generally shouldn't do a "fail" unless we've provided some degree of services here beyond merely trying to get the case started.
Robert is correct about consensus: Part of taking a case should always be an evaluation of whether someone is just ignoring consensus. If consensus has clearly been reached, then there's no dispute to do DR on and the case should be closed, possibly as a conduct dispute, because use of DR in that case is just a form of forum shopping (and, indeed, I've closed cases for that very reason); the party arguing against consensus should be told that they're free to continue to attempt to discuss it at the article talk page or to file an RFC (which may itself be snowily closed). An RFC's s more legitimate in that it brings in additional editors to the consensus process — which is never a bad thing — and consensus can change — than shopping it around the noticeboards and DR forums. If consensus is mushy or uncertain, then it's best to go ahead and take the case and perhaps make the consensus question the first thing to be resolved if other editors are raising it rather than first dealing with the real issues underlying the alleged consensus. That can be tough, because while the question of whether or not there is consensus is a content question, it's very close to being a conduct question. The proper thing to do in that situation is to require the editor opposing consensus to explain why he or she thinks consensus has not been reached and then deal with the response.
The post-close question and response are no big deal, but I'd recommend not answering such questions or, if you do, going to the editors talk page to do it rather than doing it here.

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Deleted Orthodox2014 request

Hi TransporterMan. Regarding the request from Orthodox2014 that you recently deleted, I noted that he'd filed a report without a template. But when I tried clicking the "Request dispute resolution" button myself, it just gave me a blank page. So I assumed something was faulty and "carry on as best we can" applied, especially when moderator EnglishEfternamn made no comment. Further exploration has shown that it only fails if I click the button while logged in as an admin: logged out or as non-admin User:Smallerjim, it's fine. Is this intentional? – if so, a note on the page to that effect might be handy. —SMALL JIM 15:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm not a coder, so I have to yell to our tech gurus for help: @Hasteur & @Mr. Stradivarius any thoughts? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Alternatively I suppose it might be a clash with some other js – I do have some unusual stuff loaded in User:Smalljim/vector.js, but it hasn't caused any problems before. I'm happy to run some tests if it'll help. —SMALL JIM 22:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I too have nothing to say on that, other than you're free to let me know if it gets fixed and another case is filed here. I made no comment because I'm not good with the uber technical stuff on here and a lot of that is lost on me, admittedly. EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 23:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Smalljim: This might well be an error that I introduced with my recent edits to the case-filing script, but I can't seem to replicate it myself even after copying your custom javascript. Could you go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request, open your javascript console and then let me know if you see any error messages? Also, it would be helpful to know what browser you're using. If I have an error message it will be a lot easier to work out what's going on. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

There is discussion about this case at WP:ANI. I noted that the DRN thread was closed, not because this was the wrong venue, but because it was manually filed. I said that discussion can continue at WP:COIN or can be restarted here, but should not take place at both boards at the same time, so that, if the case is refiled here, it should be closed at WP:COIN. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: I get the same behaviour in the three main browsers under Win 7, and on an Android tablet too. There are no js errors, just the (usual, I think) logged warnings about deprecated "wgServer" etc in Load.php. I've disabled all my js and gadgets - no change. Looking at the network calls though, when I'm logged in as admin, MediaWiki:Gadget-DRN-wizard.js and User:Steven_Zhang/DRW.css aren't being loaded. Does that help? —SMALL JIM 11:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Smalljim: Thank you for checking. It sounds like the most likely cause for this is that you have the DRN gadget disabled in your preferences. The script works by being a gadget turned on by default, but you can turn it off in preferences if you choose. Could you go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and see whether you have the "Form for filing disputes at the dispute resolution noticeboard" checkbox checked? If it's not checked, there's your problem. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: It's often the simplest thing isn't it? I must have turned it off during one of my occasional clean-ups. I'm really sorry for the confusion. If you could add some text to the bottom of the /request page: "If you can't see the instructions above ..." it should forestall queries from other preference-tinkerers :) —SMALL JIM 16:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)