Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Couple of questions

Hi, I am a new volunteer and would like some suggestions.

1. How binding is the 7 day time frame for discussions. Do we have to follow it or are exceptions allowed?
2. Can I change the DR status to open if I see a volunteer working on the case?
3. Is there a hierarchy for changing status (i.e who can change it and who cannot) to avoid confusion etc.?

Regards -Wikishagnik (talk) 04:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• In response:
  1. We try to nudge threads closed by that time. If disputants are stonewalling (not participating) we can't really do anything. Give the standard (24/48 hrs) notice of intent to close
  2. The magic DRN Bot (EarwigBot) will move statuses around as appropriate. It's best to let it handle most of the changes
     1. The only exception to that is closing threads out. There are 3 possibile solutions (resolved, failed, closed (meaning unsuitable for DRN)).
  3. The way to use the statuses is listed at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Volunteering. Might be a good idea to review that thoroughly prior to taking an active role in Volunteering. Hasteur (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

7 day time frame = Most cases can be resolved or failed within 7 days, but that is not at all firm. We have had cases go past that and some that went up to, or over two weeks.

DR status = While the bot is supposed to do this, be aware that on occasion (depending) it has failed to recognise the occasional volunteer. Voluteers have made changes to the status in these circumstances. If you disagree with a closing of another volunteer, we have asked that you not change the status until posting a talkpage comment first explaining your actions fully. It is always best practice to ask before you do this but is not strictly against the rules.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

UltraViolet (system)

It's not even clear to me that there is an ongoing dispute. The editor who filed the request, BurritoBazooka, is the only person to have said anything about this issue on the talk page in three months, then the following day, without any discussion from anyone else, filed this request. The only other editor mentioned in the request as being involved has not said anything on the talk page in three months, has yet to give his opening remarks on this page despite being notified on his talk page, and has not edited at all in nearly three months; I don't think it's likely that he's going to appear to take part in the discussion.

This is the relevant talk page discussion Talk:UltraViolet_(system)#Obligatory POV discussion - all of the comments are months apart. I don't really know what ought to be said or done here - I'm very new to volunteering, but clearly it's not the usual case of an ongoing disagreement between two or more editors, and waiting for JimTheFrog to comment is unlikely to be fruitful. CarrieVS (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed this too. In my opinion its a quick close as it's not appropriate, it's not an active dispute or discussion. The issue would be better addressed by taking it to a talk page of something like WP:NPOV to get consensus on the issue and proceeding that way. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting it. CarrieVS (talk) 10:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Phew

[irrelevant comments removed by commenter CarrieVS (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)]

Ignore this section, I was just frustrated. CarrieVS (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Medical uses of silver - discussed on other forum?

There's been a discussion involving those users and that article here, but I can't figure out whether it's actually about this dispute. It seems to be about deleting comments on talk pages and some fiasco over 'fake' block notices that turned out to be a broken template, though it does bring up content issues. It closed with the discovery that the block notices were accidental, and without appearing to resolve the content issues. As well as that, it seems to be this one user (who filed the DRN request) against the world, and nobody seems to have anything but criticism for his contributions.

I'm half-convinced that the DRN thread should be closed as unsuitable. Could someone else have a look at the AN/I discussion and see what they think? CarrieVS (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems that the ANI discussion was (pretty much) unrelated. There is a lot of disagreement on that article, with the same user at the centre of it all and promising to file another DRN request in a few days about a separate issue if it's not resolved by then. Anyway, I decided not to close this one. Unless anyone really thinks it should be. CarrieVS (talk) 12:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Style guide

I am putting together a manual of style for volunteers. Please feel free to help add to it.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Had a quick glance over it, looks good so far! Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Could use a bit more about cases where you have a personal involvement with the page or disputants, strong feelings on the topic, or anything that might appear to be a conflict of interest. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Do I put this down as closed or resolved?

We were this close to reaching a consensus on the Medical Uses of Silver thread, and the only dissenting voice got himself indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. Does this count as resolved or should I shut it as closed? CarrieVS (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks resolved to me...if the only dissenting voice was breaking the rules by socking, well, their opinion doesn't count for much. Definitely mark it as resolved. Cheers, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It was just because he was the olny dissenting voice from the start - without him, there was no dispute. But he's unblocked anyway. Seems it was a mistake. CarrieVS (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Manual filing

Right now, the FAQ (see above) says that it's okay to manually file. But is it really? I note that the bot adds a unique case identification number and some additional housekeeping coding to the top of the listing. Most of that has syntax which is pretty obvious and can simply be copied over from an existing listing and updated, but that's not true for the case identification number. I have on occasion simply listed the dispute using the listing form for the benefit of the parties, but that has the undesirable effect of listing me as the requesting party to the dispute. (If you're fast and lucky enough, you can change that in the listing before the status bot runs, but if you're slow or unlucky you can change it in the listing but will forever be listed as the requesting party in the status box.) I see at least four things we can do:

1. Nothing (a perennial favorite).
2. Change our rules so that using the listing form is mandatory.
3. Have someone who knows coding and has access to the listing coding and/or the status bot fix it so someone can list a case using the listing form without becoming listed as the requesting party.
4. Both 2 and 3.

There are probably other possibilities about which I'm not aware since I'm coding-ignorant. Feel free to suggest them (or just fix it). I'm fine with any of those, though I'd prefer #2, 3, or 4. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I prefer 2 - I've been unbelievably busy with work since the fellowship ended and thus have had to put the brakes on all my DR work, but this should improve soon and then I will be able to continue reforms :) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 06:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Archived without closing

It looks like Cinema of Andhra Pradesh and Mail Online got archived without being officially closed. Does something need to be done to fix that somehow? Dreamyshade (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the system is set up that way. Cases stay open for 14 days after they're filed, but then get archived if there is no action in the case for 24 hours. The idea is that if cases are here longer than that and aren't continuously progressing then they ought to move on to another venue. I will say, however, that Steven Zhang's original vision for this noticeboard (feel free to correct me, Steve, if I'm wrong) was that this was going to be more of a clearinghouse to send DR cases to other venues except for lightweight disputes which could be quickly and easily resolved here. It has arguably morphed into something quite different from that. Having said that, however, I'm fine with the way it works now, though I wonder if we might shouldn't provide a little more notice of the way it is going to work. Tip: if you're working on a case and want to extend it's lifetime, change the date in the hidden DoNotArchiveUntil line, but don't do it unless you're making steady progress and don't extend it too far. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, you're right, that was my original idea :) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 09:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Missing template in Archive 61?

If you check Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 61 you may notice that the last two cases are not reachable by clicking on the links in the TOC. For example Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 61#Royal College, Colombo does not take you to the case. It looks like the last two cases got swallowed into the collapse box for a previous case, the one for Catherine of Alexandria. I looked to see if there was a closing or opening template missing, but could not resolve the mystery. I hope that someone who is familiar with the DRN templates might have a moment to look at this. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't a missing template, it was an extra one. Catherine of Alexandria had two 'DRN archive top' templates, so the second one used up the 'bottom' template and the first swallowed everything under it. I've fixed it: I hope that's alright, as I know archives usually shouldn't be edited, but every time something new is added it would swallow that too, and it's kinda confusing. CarrieVS (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good enough reason for editing an archive. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Volunteers please sign your closing

David Bergman (journalist) was closed as resolved but has no signature on the closing.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Whoops. Will remember in future. CarrieVS (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Help with astronomy case

The Indian astronomy case is not coming to a resolution. If a volunteer has any fresh ideas, that would be appreciated. --Noleander (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

What happens when a volunteer turns out to be a sockpuppet?

User:Eng.Bandara, volunteer for the Syrian civil war thread, has been confirmed by CheckUser as a sock of User:Distributor108. What happens now? Do we start the mediation over again? Do we just pick up where the sock left off—or would that just be affording legitimacy to the sock? Are there NPOV concerns given the fact that the sockmaster was blocked for disruptive editing and a battleground mentality? Send help. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that if all of the parties are happy with the mediation so far, it should be continued. If, on the other hand, any one of them calls the past mediation efforts into question on the grounds that they have been tainted by this volunteer, then the process should be restarted from a mutually agreeable point (or from the very beginning if there is no agreement). —Psychonaut (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

If the Sock was of someone involved in the dispute it must be closed and restarted fresh. If the sock had nothing to do with the dispute and was just a volunteer here, it would be up to the involved participants.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Medical uses_of_silver

Could Talk:Medical uses_of_silver please be de-archived? I was sick for one week and it got archived during that time. I have informed the volunteer that I was sick. Ryanspir (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll look at it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Done; it's just a robot archiver. But it will strike again... User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that he actually meant that the DRN discussion had been archived and he would like for the DRN discussion to be restored. I would note that he, was, in fact off of WP from his "sick notice" to CarrieVS, the volunteer handling the case, on February 4 (and that was actully his only edit since January 30) through and including February 11, the date the DRN thread was archived, returning on February 12. On the other hand, Carrie was clearly trying to get the case closed at the time Ryan became ill and, as was discussed above, cases older than a couple of weeks here are generally subject to being closed so they can move on to other DR (usually either formal mediation or Request for Comments, though there are other possibilities as well) if there is not substantial and continuous progress towards resolution at that point in time. I'm going to drop a talkback to this discussion on Carrie's talk page and I think we ought to leave it up to her to decide whether or not to restore the DRN discussion. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

If a party has a bona fide reason for dropping out of a DRN case (and their absence had a significant impact on the case) then I think the DRN process should bend over backwards to accomodate them. Possible paths forward include (a) the party should be able to re-start a new case, and include the prior DRN case by reference; or (b) revive the old case by copying it into DRN and give it a new initial time stamp. My point is: We want the DRN process to be friendly, inviting, and humane. So we should work with parties to work-around real-life events. --Noleander (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

At the point we had gotten to when Ryanspir first asked for the discussion to be de-archived, I did not want to do so - and indeed, was very close to simply saying drop it. Essentially, Ryan wants a change to the article, but there is rough consensus to keep it as it is. So far the other participants have heard his arguments and unanimously disagreed with almost everything. They agreed to one point, and a compromise was proposed, which Ryan has since rejected. Ryan continues to ask for the same thing (the removal of any mention of Quackwatch from the article), to an extent that is on the point of stonewalling if indeed it hasn't passed it already. And, to be perfectly honest, the other participants are fed up with the issue [ill-advised remark removed CarrieVS (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)] .

I have offered Ryan my help in a final chance to try and come to an agreement, via talk pages, with the understanding that if we don't make progress or there is any more repeating of old arguments, that will be that. He is still rejecting proposed compromises, and I no longer believe there is any chance that he will agree to anything other than total acceptance of his request. On the other hand, he has now made an attempt to address the points raised by the other editors and to come up with fresh arguments. I still have little expectation that any of the other participants will agree, but it is at least a step in the right direction.

At this point, I wouldn't outright reject reopening the case if others think there is any point, but I wouldn't have much optimism, and to try and keep this going too much longer just wouldn't be fair to the other participants. If it were to be reopened, I would want it to be under the same understanding as the talk page discussion: any return to old ground, or other poor behaviour, and it's closed, for good this time. CarrieVS (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with CarrieVS on this. I would rather we didn't reopen a case over this, but simple allow the filing to be re-made. The difference is, we as volunteers should not be stretching of procedures quite this much when the best real option is for a refiling. But I support whatever the consensus is here.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

We aren't talking about re-opening, for it wasn't closed. We are talking about de-archiving due to I was sick and it got archived automatically by a bot at that time. I was sick for one week.

As CarrieVS said, a fresh argument has been introduced by me and if it won't bring to consensus in the near future, we will close it. Ryanspir (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI I have commented on the relevance of the Leeds in vitro study to Quackwatch's characterization of ingested colloidal silver here. Zad68 14:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Zad68, here is not a discussion about the matter of a new argument, I think you have accidently mistaken the relevant talk page. (And it's not a vitro study, it's a vivo study). Ryanspir (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The press release directly from Leeds says "lab tests", agree this should be continued at article Talk page. Zad68 15:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be getting on ok on talk:Medical uses of silver now. Why don't we see how it goes there for the time being? CarrieVS (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

So I propose to de-archive it and complete, for the reason of archiving was a technical one and it was as a result me being sick. Ryanspir (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

What are the outstanding issues remaining that haven't been discussed already on Talk:Medical uses of silver and in the (archived) discussion here? This noticeboard isn't intended to offer an opportunity to indefinitely filibuster. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that answers that. While I was over here, posting the above question, Ryanspir was adding a big chunk of stuff to Talk:Medical uses of silver#"Cancer research from the University of Leeds" is not relevant to Quackwatch and colloidal silver. Essentially, he wants us to incorporate his idiosyncratic reinterpretation of a press release about a scientific paper (a primary publication, rather than a review article; dealing with cells in culture and not human or even animal trials; dealing with specific, well-characterized organometallic silver complexes and not the mystery-meat of internet-based magic colloidal silver remedies). It is apparent that he hasn't read or understood the paper itself, and he seems hopelessly bent on finding imaginary hidden meanings in the press release. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

This DRN talk page is not the venue to further argue the dispute. It appears that the DRN volunteer community has, as I suggested, left this to CarrieVS's discretion to decide whether or not to reopen. Her decision at this point, based upon what is going on now, is not to do so and to allow discussion to continue on the article talk page. The disputants are free, if they care to do so, to try to move on to some other form of dispute resolution if they do not care for that decision, but the archived listing is apparently indefinitely closed at this point unless Carrie cares to restore it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

"This DRN talk page is not the venue to further argue the dispute." - That is the thing that I have said to Zad previously. But this "group" of editors is so overly zealous they are ready to fight for their point of view on every possible talk page. AGF? Forget it. Anyway, this editor is not even a part of the dispute resolution.

If I remember right, CarrieVS told me to open the discussion here. The reason was that she couldn't find anywhere how it's possible to de-archive. So all this was just about the technical issues. I would propose simply to ask an admin to de-archive it as it was suggested by Lukeno94.

I see the issue very simple: I became sick, it became archived by a bot. Everything else is irrelevant for the purpose of the de-archiving IMO. Ryanspir (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't the technical issues - it would be a simple copy and paste job, I said I didn't know if it was allowed, and also that I didn't think there was any point. And following the discussion on talk:Medical uses of silver, it's even more obvious that there isn't.

If it was only that you'd been ill, I would certainly have de-archived it. But you got ill just when I was on the point of closing as 'failed'. And although we since made a little progress on talk pages, that's now stalled. Your new argument has been discussed on the article talk page, and not only did you seem to manage well enough away from the DRN, it's now very clear that not one other editor agrees with you or is willing to agree to your request (you may recall that I said I didn't think they would).

If we had de-archived the case, and that discussion had taken place here instead of there, I would close it now. This was going to be your final shot, and it hasn't worked. You are not going to get a consensus for this. It's time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. CarrieVS (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I would be supportive of re-opening the archived case for the sole purpose of having it "officially closed" with a final disposition of "successfully resolved: clearly no consensus for the removal of the references to Quackwatch". This would be helpful with the likely upcoming WP:ANI discussion about Ryan's tendentious editing. Zad68 15:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I have removed "a threat" by Zad. Ryanspir (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I have restored my original comment. Please do not edit others' talk page comments unless they meet the criteria specified at WP:TPO, this was not one of them. Zad68 15:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I have considered it as a personal attack by threatening. Per wiki policies any editor can remove a personal attack from any talk page. But since you are insisting, I'll let someone among the editors or admins here to render a decision on that. My position is:

a) It's a personal attack by threatening.

b) It is irrelevant and shouldn't be on DRN talk page. Thank you. Ryanspir (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand you feel that way, however: a) It was a comment about a likely consequence of your behavior, not you personally, and so it was not a personal attack, and b) It is directly relevant to our DRN activity - I mentioned it to Carrie as a reason in support of my request to de-archive the case. Zad68 16:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice try. But if you would just mention it as tedious editing, maybe, just maybe that would pass. But you have mentioned reporting on ANI. That is what I'm talking about. So let other editors and admins decide about it. Ryanspir (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

And this whole sentence looks out of place and insulting to me. Also, I don't think you are honest here, untill recently you were against de-archiving the RSN. You have just changed your position 180 degrees and immediately used this change as a reason for insulting? Ryanspir (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree with you that it'd be best if we let admins review the activity here and take whatever action they feel is appropriate. Zad68 16:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Adding: regarding your statement untill recently you were against de-archiving the RSN. You have just changed your position 180 degrees - actually I don't remember ever stating that I was against de-archiving the case, do you have a diff to where I stated that? Zad68 17:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd be fine with de-archiving it to close it. CarrieVS (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes please, thanks. Zad68 15:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Can anyone tell me whether or not I ought to delete it from the archive as well?

Great, I weighed in. You should probably actively notify the other participants, who might not be following this. And if I were you I'd remove it from the archive page because then you'll end up with two of them after the dearchived copy gets archived, and that'll be confusing. Zad68 16:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think you may choose not to delete the archived version, but mention the situation in the second archived version. Ryanspir (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Need another volunteer to take United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject DR/N filing

I am afraid I will be taking a short Wikibreak. My heart is just not in this right now and it would be unfair to leave without asking another to handle the case please.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to help out with that case. --Noleander (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I went through too much withdrawl. I'm back and will help out where I can with this.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppets starting multiple dispute resolution cases

The cases "Lists of tropical cyclone names", "List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes", "Francesca Hogi" and "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Kira" were probably created by the same user with multiple IPs and sockpuppet accounts. The first two at least seem appropriate, but the others look like trolling; can these last two just be closed or removed? Peter James (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. If sockpuppetry is involved the listings will probably be closed, but the puppetry will need to be established via a SPI investigation before anything is done here. If you suspect sockpuppetry, please file a report at SPI, but do not discuss it here except to report back if that investigation does determine that sockpuppetry is involved. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the second case about the power rangers article; the first one - which I closed for no discussion - appears to be by the same person (same group of IPs as tropical cyclone names and Hurricane Kira). — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarrieVS (talk • contribs) 12:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Please do not speculate on the identities of possible sockpuppets. The rules are pretty clear; either file a case at WP:SPI or stay silent. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Which rules are you referring to ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Can the "Power Rangers" case be closed as it has been discovered that a banned user's sockpuppet started it?—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

DRN case: Microsoft Office 2013

Hi.

I see two volunteers having visited the topic and even one explicitly said he'd take it, but the case has no mediator after eight days. (Am I counting right? NVM.) Could someone please take the topic?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The case is six days old, according to the table at the top. That's rather longer a case would (or should) usually be left, but it hasn't exactly been left. It's only been three days since Zaminamina said (s)he'd take the case, and sometimes it takes a volunteer a while to get read and digest all the information. Three days is perhaps a little on the long side not to have given you any updates or say when (s)he hopes to be ready to start the discussion, but, speaking for myself, not long enough that I'd want to jump in and take over without speaking to her. I'll drop Zaminamina a note on her talk page and ask if she still intends to help with your case. CarrieVS (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks. I don't know why I forgot that I can contact her on her talk page. (Must be a psychological thing...) But six days? Let's see: It is filed on 24 Feb, 11:00am. So, 1:24, 2:25, 3:26, 4:27, 5:28, 6:1 Mar, 7:2 Mar 04:55pm. Hmm... that's seven days, not six. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, I was going by what it said in the table. CarrieVS (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean to cause you any discomfort, I wasn't criticizing you. Yes, since you said "table", naturally my objection should be targeted to software. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It's ok. :) CarrieVS (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello again.

Another question: I see that the status of this case is now changed to NeedAssist, although mediator has joined in. Is it because the template has mistakenly specified NerdFighter as the mediator?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

No; the bot doesn't register a specific person as mediator on a case, it looks for comments by anyone on the list of volunteers. However, it's not required to put your name on the list to volunteer, and Zaminamina hasn't. So the status will stay at NeedAssist (unless a volunteer who is on the list joins in), but it's not a problem. The NeedAssist status is only to inform volunteers that a case might need help. Case status can be changed manually, but there's not really any point as the bot will change it back every time it checks the page. CarrieVS (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

@Lisa; the case will get set to "Needs Assist" status by a bot when either (a) the case has no DRN volunteer after a few days; or (b) if the case is more than several days old (even if there is a volunteer). There is no special significance to the Needs Assist: the idea is that the pink color might attract editors willing to help resolve the case. --Noleander (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I wonder if I could ask a third question. How is the prospects of escalating this issue to WP:MedCom? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, that is always possible. If the DRN case is still active, I'd give it a few more days until things are stalemated for sure. Then, you can either create a WP:RFC (which is similar to DRN, but more binding if a resolution is reached); or you can go to WP:MedCom. The latter is the forum of last resort. Or you can do an RfC then MedCom. --Noleander (talk) 01:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Apple Computer's 1997 Financial Rescue

This dispute was closed as failed

One of the disputants has requested that another volunteer handle this case, so I am withdrawing. If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC) This looks like it may be back on track with Guy as mediator.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Volunteer is requested to mediate topic under discussion. Pdunbarny (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Does Godwin's law apply here? :)

I just opened a dispute about Adolph Hitler. This is a topic which can become heated, so right from the start I am inviting any other interested volunteers to jump in and assist if needed. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey Guy, I was looking into the dispute just now and will need to look a little closer to be sure but, I think we may have a classic case of "no real dispute". This looks to be a single editor not accepting both the consensus of editors and the sources being used. I will take a look at the sources that were provided in the lede by the editor Diane (she placed them there for the benifit of the disputing editor). If they are reasonable and reliable, we may need to close this dispute as not being a dispute at all, but a single editor "not getting it".--Amadscientist (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The editor that has filed the case is resisting the use of the wording "systematicaly murdered" which seems to be almost unquestionable to me. Hitler did indeed put into place a number of system to murder the numbers being mentioned and our policies for using simple math seem to have been used within reason. I have asked for some further input from the OP at the article talkpage.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

To my way of thinking, closing a case because of a single editor not accepting both the consensus only applies if there is no question of a policy issue. If indeed the consensus view reflects WP:SYNTHESIS, policy trumps consensus.

At this point I have serious doubts about the WP:SYNTHESIS claim, but I am not ready to dismiss it as being obviously wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Not at all ready to close the case. I agree with the above statement. I, myself have mediated a similar case so I agree it should not be closed without your agreement and I believe it may well be best to let this take its natural course within DR/N.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

In response to the question in the title, where is "here"? HiLo48 (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Seriously?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC) We have (roghly) a million articles that discuss Hitler. I assumed that the main one would be long stable by now, so assumed it was somewhere else. Why didn't you Wikilink it? HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC) *Sigh* I have no clue what you are talking about. Why would I link it Hilo...I didn't write the post.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC) There may be multiple articles that discuss Hitler, but there are currently five open DRN cases, and they are listed and color-coded at the top of this page. It isn't hard to figure out which one I am referring to. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Formatting Issue

Please take a look at the formatting of the Microsoft Office 2013 case in these two versions: Version One Version Two

I thinks we should standardize on the second version.

BTW, is it really important to keep the "Filed by" outside of the collapsed section? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that it makes any substantial difference, so if pressed for an opinion I'd !vote for the one that only needs one template. But it's hardly a problem to put {{clear}} above the archive top template, so either's fine by me (and if the archive template could be altered to include it, then I have no particular preference).

I agree about "Filed by". I don't see what's especially important about that information above any other details. CarrieVS (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding dispute resolution "Pharmaceutical Industry"

Hi,

Apologies if this is not the right place to post this. I have not idea where to ask this question and have posted a similar question to the user pages of volunteers UseTheCommandLine and Guy Macon, who seem to be associated with the processing of this request in some way.

My request for dispute resolution was "quick closed for lack of sufficient discussion on the article talk page". This issue has been the subject of 7 exchanges totalling some 1700 or so words on the Article Talk page (under the lengthy subtitle "Some researchers who have tried to reveal ethical issues with clinical trials or who tried to publish papers that show harmful effects of new drugs or cheaper alternatives have been threatened by drug companies with lawsuits" and also under "Source query". An additional 6 exchanges on are shown on my user talk page, for a total of 13. I realize that the latter 6 should have been on the article Talk page, but this does not change the fact that we seem to be at an impasse.

I just wanted to check to be clear that you had seen all of these exchanges, and if so, what additional requirements are needed before we can get assistance with this. At this point, I think the interactions have become completely unproductive.

Thanks,

Alfred Bertheim (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow...well for one...we don't count the words in the header. LOL! But in all seriousness it isn't a word or character count. The back and forth only contains 7 posts over five days. Regardless of the length of those individual comments and replies it still isn't an "extensive discussion".--Amadscientist (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

My only involvement was clerical. As I often do, I made sure the case name name is short and descriptive, that everybody named has a notice on their talk page, and that all links go to the right places. Other than that, I am not involved. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I but I'm trying to do the right thing here, and it seems to me that we are descending into a reversion war. Certainly most all of my edits have been reverted, and from my point of view, my points dismissed out of hand. Not quite sure what to do here if you guys are not interested other than respond in kind, and I don't think that is productive. Suggestions?

I am new to this and am trying to behave according to Wikipedia standards, be productive, and follow the rules. I'm sorry if I've misunderstood the protocol here, but I don't think ridicule is helpful. My approach here may be naive, but it is well-intentioned and I'd appreciate it if that were respected.

Alfred Bertheim (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm the editor that quick-closed it. I sort of took SlimVirgin's comments at face value, because they had a couple of diffs, and Alfred Bertheim's statement about previous discussion was that "extensive discussion" had taken place, sans diffs. I did not look at the relevant individuals' talk pages, and only skimmed the article talk page. In looking at all of this material now, I don't think I was wrong in quick-closing it. Further, it seems like because this dispute is almost entirely between the two of you, that WP:3O should be consulted as a first-line remedy, with DRN coming after that. I wouldn't expect a new editor to know that, but I did mention it in my closing comment. Perhaps I was a bit hasty, but I don't see any indication that my judgement was incorrect. I will try not to be so hasty in the future. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 06:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I know you guys are busy and I appreciate what you do. However, I feel we are so far apart on the issues here that I have no expectation of further progress nor of mutually agreeing on who is a "neutral" third party. So I will probably just walk away from this one.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my note nonetheless. Alfred Bertheim (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

We are not that busy. I have expanded on my reply at your talkpage.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Conflict relolution strategies

I was wondering what others thought of a Conflict resolution strategy guide to go along with our Volunteer guide. I think we all have different tactics and ideas to resolving disputes that each of us could benifit from. Thoughts?--Amadscientist (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Another Sockpuppet investigation associated with a DRN filing

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Etimo --Guy Macon (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Civility closures

I'd like to propose a procedure for use when there is unacceptable incivility in a listing:

Step 1: Volunteer posts this message in the discussion:

STOP ALL DISCUSSION! This discussion is suspended until civility matters are resolved. Incivility, conduct allegations, allegations of bias, conflict of interest, or sockpuppetry, and personal attacks are not permitted at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. In keeping with DRN procedures, all participants in this discussion are notified that this listing will be closed 48 hours after the date of this warning unless all participants edit their own comments to remove all references to or discussion of other editors. Do not edit other editor's comments. If you wish to comment or complain about another editor's conduct, bias, conflict of interest, or personal attacks, do so at the administrator's noticeboard, sockpuppet investigations, the conflict of interest noticeboard, file a user request for comments, or take appropriate action at some other conduct-related noticeboard, but do not do so here. This discussion is suspended until a regular DRN volunteer states that it may continue. Once the current problems have been removed, additional conduct allegations or incivility may cause this listing to be closed without additional notice. [signature and timestamp]

Syntax: Use exactly in the following form:

• {{subst:template}}

Step 2: 48 hours later, the same or a different volunteer adjudges whether or not the incivility has been adequately removed and either gives extra time (with some pointed directions, probably), closes the request, or approves the discussion to continue. The template should remain in place for the ongoing warning in the final paragraph.

Whaddauthink? Too much? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

For those of you who are new, I am a dispute resolution volunteer who went inactive for a few months to work on a hot project. I am back now.

I think the above helps to address what I see as a major reason why some DR cases fail to resolve the dispute; they simply turn an argument on a talk page into two arguments on a talk page and a DRN page, the latter with one extra participant. In my opinion, what makes for a successful dispute resolution is putting the disputants in a more structured environment where they have to do things differently. Major components of that are having to wait for responses and having to discuss article content without discussing user conduct. To my way of thinking, the DR volunteer should use a firm but gentle hand to lead to discussion towards a resolution that both sides can accept.

The other side of the coin is making it perfectly clear that the DR volunteer has zero power over anyone outside of the DRN case; by design we have no authority, we cannot block or sanction, we can only advise as to what the disputants should or should not do outside of DRN and nobody has to participate in a DRN case. For those who do choose to participate, however, it needs to be made clear that we have behavioral guidelines that were designed to help them to resolve the dispute, and that we will enforce those guidelines, but only within DRN. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Very often disputes do arise due to a combination of a variety of those factors. I say this because I am currently a party to just such a dispute. Focusing too closely on some narrow definition of the dispute would then result in our missing the root of that dispute. Here is the dispute I am referring to: WP:ANI#Repeated_removal_of_cited_lede. So, obviously we need a middle ground---maybe a different observer-volunteer can flag it? Chaipau (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems a bit strident. Also, I object to the statement "... is suspended until a regular DRN volunteer states that it may continue." because DRN volunteers have no special power or authority (it's been claimed repeatedly that the volunteer list exists primarily to help the DRN bot do its job). For instance, consider the situation where two volunteers helping, and one wants to close the case due to incivility but the other feels the problem is resolved & wants to forge ahead. In the cases where the incivility is continuing, the DRN volunteer(s) can simply ignore the case ... it will get closed down quickly enough if no volunteers want to get involved. How about something like:

STOP INCIVILITY AND DISCUSSIONS OF BEHAVIOR! Incivility, discussions of editor behavior, personal attacks, and allegations of bias, conflict of interest, or sockpuppetry are not permitted at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. In keeping with DRN procedures, all participants in this discussion are notified that no further discussion of behavior or conduct will be permitted. All editors are requested to remove comments they have posted which are incivil. If you wish to comment about another editor's behavior, do so at the administrator's noticeboard, sockpuppet investigations, conflict of interest noticeboard, or user request for comments. If incivility continues, DRN volunteers will refrain from assisting with the case, and the case will be closed without additional notice. [signature and timestamp]

That seems a bit briefer and gives a more accurate reflection of DRN volunteers' powers (or lack thereof). --Noleander (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I like the first one better and don't agree with Noleander about any sort of "power". This isn't about power at all. Volunteers are the ones that open and close cases and are also the ones that may enforce policies and guidelines at DR/N. The first one may be a tad long but it can be edited for brevity. Let me take a shot at it.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

... and what if every time I saw one of these notices, I (or any other volunteer) posted underneath "It is okay to continue now, just keep it civil"? Are we saying DRN will adopt some kind of admin-like wheel-war rules? --Noleander (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

grain-of-salt noob-commentator-warning here

I love the idea. I would agree with Noleander's concerns. I also wonder about the mechanics of asking people to remove their comments. The concern, as i see it, is that simply striking the comments might not be enough to settle things down. But if, say, a DRN case is used as evidence in a behavior dispute, removal of the comments might present someone who is not adhering to WP:GIANTDICK to be construed as someone more reasonable than they are. I dont think i would be concerned about this if the history of the dispute were available through the history tab, but right now archived disputes have no history. i might have more to say in a few days once i have more time.

also, it's quite long. maybe put a shorter version for the page and then the longer version on active disputants' pages? -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 21:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Query - This seems like a solution in search of a problem. Was there some particular DRN case that was a disaster that gave rise to this proposed notice? --Noleander (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Multiple EC's @UseTheCommandLine: The history is always in the history of the main page even if the thread itself is moved to the archive. I debated back and forth between striking and removing; both have their strengths and weaknesses. I ended up with removal because with a strikeout, the allegations are still there grating on everyone even though there's a line through them, but that's a close call. @Noleander: Dammit, Nol, I am a bit strident ;-). I think that we, as a project, can by consensus put such restrictions or requirements on keeping a thread open or not as we care to do or not do. If we can do that, then we can also set rules on suspending it and lifting the suspension, though I get your point about special powers and perhaps the "regular" ought to have been dropped from my version. When I first started thinking about this, it was in the context of adding a closing reason to the "rules" which allows any volunteer to close a discussion if there is excessive incivility, even if there are also genuine content issues also present. I decided that was too much and put too much authority into the hands of individual volunteers to just close threads without warning. So I created a warning system while still allowing the shutdown eventually if the disputants can't get their act together. How about my version without the suspension language, but keeping in the 48-hour closure warning? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Supplement @Nol: The current "Hungarian people" listing is the one that got me thinking about this. I came real close to just closing it and telling them that if they wanted to list it they needed to relist it without the personal allegations. I defaulted to a warning. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

@TM: Yes, your suggestion is good: "How about my version without the suspension language, but keeping in the 48-hour closure warning? " - that is sort of what I was trying to get at with my revised version. --Noleander (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I've said it before and i will say it again. it is not that we have no special power, it is that we have as much power as anyone else...inluding admin. Administrators are not special and they have no special rights, just special tools. Some that allow them to block. We can all hand out sanctions by simply beginning a thread and !voting on it. Seriously. This is just another tool, and i think it important to mention that anyone can remove uncivil comments and off topic chat (although I prefer to hat or collapse) DR/N has volunteers that are specific listed mediaters and we should be attempting to give the m (us) the right tools, the right guides and as much support as we can. But...I am not going to edit the notice. I think Transportation man may have some good points and he should be allowed the ability to create and use tools like anyone else. I appreciate the fact that he brought this here for discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It's about that point in the day where my computer locks up and throws me offline (gotta get that fixed ... too darn many Firefox plugins) but let me quickly say that I see our community here at DRN and at other DR forums as a model of how this boat is supposed to float. (That's one reason, Nol, that I'm not too much concerned about volunteer EW's: when that happens we all need to go do origami or basket weaving, but give up DR'ing and probably give up WP altogether. If we can't work together, who can?) I'll float another draft, hopefully tomorrow, and let y'all whack at it. Thanks for all the good comments. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I just feel better by backing away from this one and letting you and Noleander work it out. I am sure between the two of you or any others that this can be worked out.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

New draft:

Incivility, conduct allegations, allegations of bias, conflict of interest, or sockpuppetry, and personal attacks are not permitted at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. In keeping with DRN procedures, all participants in this discussion are notified that this listing will be closed 48 hours after the date of this warning unless all participants edit their own comments to remove all references to or discussion of other editors. Do not edit other editor's comments. Once the current problems have been removed, additional conduct allegations or incivility may cause this listing to be closed without additional notice. Comments or complaints about another editor's conduct, bias, conflict of interest, or personal attacks, may be made at the administrator's noticeboard, sockpuppet investigations, or the conflict of interest noticeboard or via a request for comments/user but may not be made here. [signature and timestamp]

Better? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes ... much better! Of course, I can't resist the temptation to make it pithier:

The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard does not permit incivility or discussion of other editors' conduct. All participants in this discussion are notified that this listing will be closed 48 hours after the date of this warning unless all participants edit their own comments to remove all discussion of other editors. Do not edit other editors' comments. Comments about another editor's conduct can be made in another forum as described in the Dispute Resolution process. [signature and timestamp]

--Noleander (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea. Discussion doesn't get anywhere while people are venting/bitching about each other's behaviour, and I've found that a lot of people either ignore a reminder to be civil and not discuss conduct, or start arguing about whether they have or not. It's hard to ignore a big red box, and it won't get lost in a sea of comments. I think it shouldn't be a go-to, though; I'd want the instructions to make clear that it shouldn't be used unless incivility continues after a non-template warning (I'm sure someone can phrase it better than that). CarrieVS (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I would hope that most volunteers would first give parties a gentle reminder that behavior-related discussions are not permitted within DRN. It is only if parties ignore that guidance and continue the belligerence that a BIG RED BOX should be posted. --Noleander (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Just thought of something: If there were a DRN case with, say, 4 parties, and one of them was obnoxious, and If this big warning were posted in the case, that party could deliberately terminate the case by simply posting some incivil comments after the warning. It seems odd to give a single party the power to terminate the case. Just thinking out loud. --Noleander (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thinking outloud is a good way to get others to understand your concerns. I think an important part of using this template would be establishing when to use it. I would think this should be reserved for when the entire group falls into the trap of incivility, not just when one person loses it. That is when any editor should feel free to remove the comments or collapse as Codename Lisa mentions below. If everyone is going off topic with uncivil remarks then there really is not actaul discussion, just a huge fight and is when it would be appropriate in my view to use it.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Can't others remove his comments or request removal by oversight? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

How about saying something like 'editors who do not comply may be asked to leave or the case may be closed' and leave it to the volunteer's discretion? CarrieVS (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Nol's rewrite is fine. I also agree that this is for widespread incivility not for just one editor, or one or two out of a large group, acting up and usually (but not always) needs to be a last resort. Strange as it may seem from my advancement of this proposal, I'm ordinarily a fairly strong advocate of simply ignoring minor-to-moderate incivility with the thought that curing the underlying content dispute will cure the conduct disputes. This is for when things get (or start, as happened over the last couple of days with the Hungarian people listing) out of hand. And Nol is also correct that we should have some concern that overuse of this could allow someone to manipulate the process. But that can also happen, of course, without making oneself look so much like a tool by simply refusing to participate and continuing to churn the dispute at the article talk page, so I don't think that it's likely. I'll take Nol's version and move it into templatespace if everyone thinks we're done. @CarrieVS: Forcing individual editors to leave is probably going to wreck any chance of the DR succeeding and the threat of doing so puts the volunteer in the position of squabbling with individual disputants and thus diminishing the volunteer's neutrality. I think that any action or threat needs to be directed to everyone involved, not pointed at any one person for that reason, but that's just my thought. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably right. I was just going by the 'things to remember' in the guide for participants. CarrieVS (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Amadscientist. Collective leverage can work wonders, but it must be applied strategically in order to be effective and to deter weaponization. How about discretionary degrees of intervention like this:

 

The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard does not tolerate incivility or permit discussion of other editors' conduct. All editors are requested to remove unacceptable comments that they, and only they, have posted. If disruption continues, volunteers may refrain from further assisting with this case, and it may be closed without additional notice. Please refer to the conduct resolution process for further information on user disputes. [signature and timestamp]

 

This discussion is suspended pending review. The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard does not tolerate incivility or permit discussion of other editors' conduct. All participants are requested to remove unacceptable comments that they, and only they, have posted within 72 hours of this notification. If any participants are not cooperative, this listing will otherwise be closed. Please refer to the conduct resolution process for further information on user disputes. [signature and timestamp]

 

These also needs to be a set of accompanying user talk templates if we want already-frustrated users to actually come back and modify their comments.   — C M B J   09:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I dunno. Two new warning boxes seems like a big leap forward in bureaucracy. Maybe we should start with one and see how it goes ... maybe the orange one above. Also, I repeat my concerns about the statement "Accordingly, this thread is suspended until such time that a volunteer states that it may continue" - because the consensus is that persons listed in the DRN volunteer list do not have any special powers, yet that statement implies that they do have a special power. --Noleander (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the closure clause to reflect your thoughts. I do still believe that having two templates is valuable, though, because it allows for a proportional approach.   — C M B J   15:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• To me, I think this would be fighting fire with fire. I don't own this forum by any means, but I don't want to see ugly red templates with big stop hands and bold letters telling people "STOP BEING SO UNCIVIL" (or having that effect). I think leading by example is the way to go. It's like fire. The key is to keep on top of itbefore it gets out of control. It's a lot easier to put out a small grass fire than a huge bushfire. The same with an argument. If discussion is starting to get heated, address it before it turns into a shouting match. If that's not successful and participants continue, talk to them on their talk page about it and try to deescalate. If that's not successful, then you seek admin intervention. But, please no big red templates =) Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 06:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Wrong template format

The current template uses the ambox which is restricted for article messages. The correct template for this is Template:Warning (we can still use the stop hand image):

Just so we don't get screamed at.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The Adolph Hitler report shouldn't have been accepted

While I have a very high degree of respect for Guy, I think that he made an error by accepting the Adolph Hitler report. The issues here can't be separated from an editor conduct problem, which several of the involved editors (including myself) noted as part of the opening statements. Given this, I was really surprised that this was accepted given the previous history of similar reports I've seen (which have generally - and rightly - been quickly rejected), and Guy's well meaning and good faith attempts to limit the discussion only to content issues are a bit of a case of trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole. This approach has lead to the IMO absurd situation where an editor who's blatantly misrepresenting sources to push his view (which appears to be somewhat fringe), posting fairly dubious statements and then claiming that he didn't mean what he wrote can't be properly called on it, which renders the whole discussion somewhat pointless given that this is meant to be a good faith discussion about the content of sources. I note that the editor in question isn't being called on backtracking on his posts (eg, posting that Churchill caused mass starvation in Poland, and then claiming that he didn't mean this at all and was putting this forward only as an example of the type of argument to avoid...), despite the poisonous effect such conduct has on good faith discussions. I'm not going to take any further part in the discussion, and don't see how it's likely to end with a positive result. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The above is basically a disagreement what the guide for participants at the top of the page says

"What this noticeboard is not:"

"It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct."

I think it is always worth doing to reexamine how we do things. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't disagreeing with that - I think that it's an important feature of this board (which generally works well, and IMO shouldn't turn into an ArbCom-lite or another ANI for fairly obvious reasons). My concern is that this report was accepted when it the issues can't be dealt with without also tackling conduct issues, which this board isn't set up to deal with. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

If you look close you will see that we do accept disputes that have some conduct issues, but we do not always attempt to handle those issues. Conduct and civility are issues that the community have a very difficult time with. For that reason, many times if conduct gets out of hand, we will simply close the case and suggest arbitration where sanctions, bans and blocks are applied. However, we always attempt to take caes based on the individual volunteer perception and I agree with Guy that the case did not appear to be such a major conduct related dispute. there was a clear content dispute here.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Churchill and starvation. I ask NickD to consider that you misunderstood what I wrote and my intention. I gave factual examples of Churchill and added them together to make another example of unacceptable synthesis. I did not later backtrack and I still stand by everything that I wrote. Regarding the factual accuracy of my example.

1. "...at Churchill's request, [British Military Chiefs of Staff ] had already figured out how to win the war... Three things would carry the day: general starvation and a shortage of raw materials throughout Germany and the occupied countries. ...Before the winter of 1940 there would be 'widespread starvation in many of the industrial areas'... Imposing these measures on an entire subcontinent - in other words starving millions of people - might raise moral questions, the report conceded. On the other hand , 'it is only by this pressure that we can ensure the defeat of Germany'..." Human Smoke, by Nicholson Baker. Pg 188, quoting 'Grand Strategy' by Butler pgs.209, and 212-215.

2. "Herbert Hoover gave a press conference about the food situation in Belgium, Holland Poland and Norway. 'The obvious truth is that there will be wholesale starvation, death and disease in these little countries...' Churchill was the chief obstacle, Hoover wrote later.'He [Churchill] was a militarist of the extreme school who held that the incidental starvation of of women and children was justified if it contributed to the earlier ending of the war by victory'. Poland as it happened was particularly vulnerable. ...the Chamberlain government has allowed the food through the blockade [to Poland]. 'When Churchill succeeded Chamberlain as Prime Minister in May 1940 he soon stopped all permits of food relief to Poland'". Human Smoke. pg 220.

I was misrepresented regarding my challenging of Longerich. He does not use the term attributed to him by Diannaa. Which is what I wrote, not what was incorrectly ascribed to me (i.e. a strawman argument).

Also, I am not a lone voice. Five editors have agreed the sentence is problematical (two have argued for its deletion as an inaccurate oversimplification; one other agreed it was the result of synthisis; one wrote the source for the numbers was unreliable, one other edited the sentence on the page but hasn't joined the discussion.) You are just being asked to deal with the question of adhering to basic and core wiki policy of VERFIABILITY regarding this disputed sentence. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Nick's analysis that this case is misplaced here because it's not about sources but about user conduct. Guy, I too appreciate that you mean well, but in my opinion you have not handled this case very well for the following reasons:

You struck out all of Paul B's comments (and some of mine), which cautioned that this case would be difficult to resolve without reviewing and considering user conduct.

You opened the floor by injecting very inappropriate humour into the discussion—there's nothing wrong with adding some levity and you apologised for this, but it suggested to me that you are not very familiar with the subject at hand, which demands an exceeding amount of tact, especially from those who are supposed to be moderating the discussion.

You did not respond to Nick and my rebuttals of the synthesis allegation that had focused on the fact that the alleged synthesis had occurred in the lead, which by definition is supposed to summarise content succinctly and accurately.

Mystimwipe engaged in lengthy observations on user conduct in his comments to which you responded without noting this violation nor did you swiftly remove his/her user conduct observations as you did with Paul B's and my comments; you only did so when asked to do so.

When subjected to pressure from this user to omit or modify the sentence in the lead, you took his/her assertion that multiple editors have advocated for such change at face value and suggested your own alternative wording without providing a well thought-out rationale for why such a change is needed and what it would accomplish. Again, only after I queried you about who had submitted "repeated requests" for changes, you admitted that only one user had been making such request—this suggested to me that you mentally amplified the comments coming from this single user while dampening rebutting comments coming from multiple users.

In summary, I do appreciate your efforts here, but I do not see that you have shown evidence that you have sufficient insight into the breadth and complexity of the subject at hand and that you can conduct this discussion judiciously. I suggest to close the case as "failed" or that you recuse yourself from further discussion. Thank you. Malljaja (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, much of the above is factually incorrect. If I see a couple of uninvolved dispute resolution volunteers suggest that I should recuse myself i will do so, but I believe that I have for the most part acted appropriately. I do apologize if any attempts at humor caused offense; that was not my intention. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Guy, I don't mean to belabour this, but can you please correct me where you think I was "factually incorrect"? If I was, I'm more than ready to make amends and strike any comments that were erroneous. I was not offended by your attempts at humour; however, given the subject I felt they didn't bode well for a productive discussion. Thanks. Malljaja (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to engage in a point-by-point rebuttal, so I will just mention one. I covered the subtleties of applying WP:SYNTHESIS to a lead several times (the answer is that citations that directly support the wording in the lead can be placed elsewhere in the article, but they do have to exist). Feel free to have the last word; I trust the reader to evaluate your other accusations and feel no need to defend myself. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I still do not see why editors are refusing to answer the simple two questions or discuss the contradictory quotations in good faith. Could you please explain why you are refusing to do so and insisting on making this about my conductand now Guy's conduct? I mean, what conduct (other than refusing to bow to an argument of consensus) am I infringing exactly? Do you believe a marginal consensus over-rides the core requirement of verifiability? If this sentence were verifiable why have you not been able to demonstrate that yet?

And do you really not agree that four other editors have agreed the sentence is problematical?

I see a distinction between answering an editor's argument WITHOUT discussing the editor's conduct (type 1.) and discussing only the editor and their conduct (type2.). So I do not think I did engage in lengthy observations on user conduct. I thought I answered user arguments (type 1.) that had been allowed to stand. It was for this reason that I intentionally mentioned no names, only the arguments made. I think this is different to the blocked comments that ignored my arguments and quotes and ONLY discuss me (type 2). So I think Guy was actually generous to meet the request to block some of my replies.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Mysticumwipe, your questions were answered (for example, your question about the sources supporting the questioned lead sentence was answered here), and—for your benefit only—citations were even included in the lead. But instead of accepting them, you changed tack and alleged that OR and synthesis occurred to force your POV. Note that the sources you provided to support your counterargument, such as Basil Liddell Hart (a military theorist who specialised in military strategy not history) were not considered adequate by broad consensus among editors (not one other editor concurred with your suggestions or choice of sources). This is how WP works—if you fail to gain consensus you need to accept it or provide compelling (and in this case extraordinary evidence) from sources written by scholars widely accepted as experts in their field. However, as Nick-D has pointed out, you have also misrepresented sources from well-known scholars (eg, Longerich), and thus you are unlikely to succeed in promoting your ideas if you continue this practice. Because of this and your insistence on prolonged and highly unproductive discussion that show that you are not acting in good faith, I believe it's quite likely that several editors who have interacted with you are now that a point to bring your behaviour to an ANI should you continue to push your POV and apply misrepresentations to conducts of other editors and to sources. Malljaja (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

But I have not misrepresented sources. I still maintain that Lipstadt and Novich dispute the eleven million figure. This fact still remains unadressed. Ironically it was Dianna's quotes that did not say what she/he maintained. The answers you are saying we're given on the talk (your above link) do not concur with the disputed sentence and no-one has refuted my explanation here for why they do not. I'm a reasonable person. Just explain it. Instead you and others have concentrated on an argument that doesn't cut it, viz. on arguments about my conduct, that I am alone, (which is manifestly incorrect and which you have again ducked) and that you are many (which I acknowledged right at the start). Consensus does not allow for infringement of basic wiki policy. Guy has also said this to you. I am not pushing a point of view. I am applying wiki policy to a sentence that I believe is a result of synthesis. that is all. Therefore it is up to the editors who argue for the sentence to provide the sources that it derives from. Not for me to prove anything. It's not just Liddell. the Kershaw quote you are using contradicts the sentence. And I never asked for sources to be inserted in the lead. I have already stated this. So... In fact I think almost every point you have raised here is incorrect. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Your assertion that you have not misrepresented sources is your opinion to which you are entitled. However, inspection of your statements and the sources you have used to try to support them tell otherwise. Nick-D just recently provided an example where you clearly have misrepresented Longerich. And reviewing your recent editing history, I cannot help but notice that some of your other edits have attracted concern over infringement on core wiki policy (for example, here). So you have no credibility when lecturing others on wiki policies. Malljaja (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I, like Guy Macon, am a regular editor here. This page is not the place to discuss the dispute. Doing so fragments the history of the discussion over too many venues to follow. Please move the discussion back to either the article talk page or to the DRN discussion thread, but do not go any further here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

In particular, only move it to the DRN page if you are willing to talk about article content and not user conduct. If you wish, you can accuse each other on the article talk page as you have been doing for months. (How has that been working out for you?) There are situations where some discussion of user conduct on DRN is OK, but this case needs to be resolved by focusing on the wording of the article and the content of the sources. In my opinion, this focus on user conduct and the inexplicable claim that we cannot possibly resolve this content dispute if we don't allow editors to accuse each other and defend themselves is one of the main reasons why this was not resolved on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It was resolved IMO: we had one editor refusing to drop the stick and move on, and not much has changed. I have to confess to being a bit confused about the above: it seems that DRN can't be used to discuss user conduct except for where the volunteers judge that it can be (which isn't then clearly communicated) - this isn't at all clear to participants, and you're setting yourself up for grief by going down this route. With respect, it's not a good way of running things and I'd suggest sticking to the clear rule (as expressed above) of not accepting cases which involve user conduct, rather than an approach of taking a punt on the editor conduct issues which are raised as part of the opening statements being not very serious as may have been the case here. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

If I have talked about the behavior of other editors in the DRN case (not including requests that someone follow the rules), drop me a line on my talk page with the wording I used, and I will strike my own comments. The rules apply to me as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I was actually responding to Amadscientist's comment that "If you look close you will see that we do accept disputes that have some conduct issues, but we do not always attempt to handle those issues" [emphasis added by me] and "However, we always attempt to take caes based on the individual volunteer perception and I agree with Guy that the case did not appear to be such a major conduct related dispute.", and not anything you'd written. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Helloooooo! Five editors! There were and STILL are FIVE editors who have issues with the sentence. It seems ironic that some editors will not acknowledge this obvious and simple example of arithmetic but expect others to accept the more complex and nuanced arithemtic in the disputed sentence: ;-) The content of the sentence and its disputed verifiability has NOTHING to do with user conduct. Arguing that a slightly marginal consensus of a handful of editors supercedes and trumps over verifiability is the issue here. Is that an acceptable argument? I think not. Instead of refusing to discuss but attacking me and falsely claiming I am alone, why not instead argue over the sources that would resolve the synthesis debate? Guy has repeatedly asked people to do that, yet the editors claiming that they are the consensus have repeatedly refused. Just do that and the stand-off can be resolved and this might go somewhere. Just provide obvious and clear verifiable sources. And then respond to arguments about these sources offered. Do not at that stage jump-off the discussion arguing again "but we are many and we have done this". --Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Note that Mystichumwipe has asked me on my talk page "Do you deny that the starvation in Poland was the deliberate and intentional policy of Churchill's blockade? (can you read and acknoweldge sources?)" [italics in the original]. I'll let other editors draw their own conclusions about what that means about his suggestion that posting similar material as part of the DRN thread wasn't meant to be taken at face value. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"wasn't meant to be taken at face value" is not my wording and is another misrepresentation (strawman). Nick, just deal with the disputed sentence. Please.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did misread your comment: you did mean for the (IMO fringe) view that Churchill is responsible for the starvation in Nazi-administered Poland to be taken seriously. Apologies. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Read the QUOTED SOURCES. Hoover, Churchill, the British General staff, all admit this. Its not me saying that, its Butler, Nicholson Baker and even Rummel saying that. ("The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend." - Henri Bergson, French Philosopher and Educator.)--Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

RFC of interest to those involved in dispute resolution

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conflict Resolution#Request for comment Beeblebrox (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Why have two duplicate Volunteer Guidelines?

Why does the page WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteer manual of style have the name "manual of style"? That is a rather inaccurate name - "style" implies it is limited to stylistic matters (capitalization, italics, etc). Also, including the phrase "manual of style" in the page name may imply to readers that this is part of the WP:Manual of style, which it is not. More importantly: about half the page (the entire "Opening a case" section) is process-oriented guidance on how to mediate. A better name would be "Volunteer guide" or "Volunteer manual". And why is there so much content overlap with the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering page? --Noleander (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks like that entire "style" page was created in 4 days (Jan 23 to Jan 27) ... was there some discussion about Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering being inadequate? Another page had to be created? Maybe I missed that discussion. --Noleander (talk) 03:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It also looks like the instructions at the top of WP:DRN (instructions for volunteers) now primarily links to the "manual of style" page, instead of the older, broader Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering page ... when did that change happen? Was there a discussion? --Noleander (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I see a brief mention of the style guide at Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_10#Style_guide. I think we should revisit it and consider merging the two documents. Is there some compelling need for two documents? --Noleander (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That can be renamed "Volunteer guidelines" but yes, we should have seperate pages for the volunteer page and a full guide with more detail.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

What is the difference between the purposes of the two pages? --Noleander (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks like there is a huge amount of duplication between the two pages, mostly in (a) full replication of the "case status" color code/status descriptors; and (b) tips/guidance/advice; and (c) instructions on how to close. Both pages are relatively small. Do you have any objection to merging the two pages? --Noleander (talk) 04:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the link at the top of the WP:DRN page (the link for volunteers to go to get instructions) to point to the original Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering .. which is a page about a year old, and that many editors have worked on. We should probably have more people review the new "style" page before we put a link to it in a prominent location at the top of the DRN page. Plus we should look at the overlap between the two and figure out what to do. --Noleander (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you are over reacting and I think the link was fine. This sounds like you just don't like it. I'm sorry you missed the discussion but your making changes after the fact then demanding we revisit it is a little off putting and sounds like a simple content dispute. If you want to discuss something why would you start changing links to it when the disucssion just begins. What is it you want?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It is best if the instructions for DRN are simple and concise. I do not see a need for 2 separate pages. The two pages look nearly identical. One is older, and has been worked on by many editors. The 2nd page you created looks very similar to the older page. The 2nd page was only reviewed by one other editor, and then the top of the DRN page was changed to link to the new page (with no notice to the DRN community?). I'd recommend that we have several volunteers review the new "style" page and see if there is a strong reason for a 2nd page. Both pages are very small, and nearly identical in content. If you can articulate a clear distinction between the two pages, and explain why volunteers should have to visit 2 separate small pages to get guidance, that might be helpful to understand your goals. --Noleander (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

If this is just for the consensus of editors here, would you like a formal RFC or just a local discussion here? We could just ask all volunteers to review the page and see if they !vote, "remove it"- "merge relveant material to the volunteer page"- "Keep it and alter it"- or just "keep it with no change".--Amadscientist (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but it is hard for me (and I presume other editors) to give an opinion until we understand the reason behind the new Style page. It would help if you could explain: (1) What distinct purposes do the two pages serve? (2) why didn't you just add material to the older Volunteering page? and (3) why can't the two pages be merged? Your answers should clarify matters. --Noleander (talk) 05:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

If you have an issue could you state it and propose what you want adresssed and how, perhaps?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is the original discussion: [1].--Amadscientist (talk) 05:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that we now have two instruction pages that are nearly identical, which causes confusion and duplication in a high-visibility WP:DR process. The proposal is to merge the two pages. Can you answer the questions I posed above (1,2,3), please? --Noleander (talk) 05:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what your listed quetions are but the Volunteering page is the landing page where editors can add their name to the volunteer list and get an overview of the process. The Guide is a detailed summary of how new editors can become involved and guidence for quick closing and advice on how to get started if you are unsure where to begin. The overview has a main link to the guide as the more detailed full suggestions. I just don't see an issue here accpet that it just be titled Volunteer guide--Amadscientist (talk) 07:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The questions are 4 posts above. I'll repeat them here: (1) What distinct purposes do the two pages serve? (2) why didn't you just add material to the older Volunteering page? and (3) why can't the two pages be merged? You've sort of answered #1 (you feel that the old page is an overview, and your new page is a "detailed" page); can you answer the other two questions? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

And I see that you just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Conflict Resolution today. That appears to be nearly identical to the 2-year old project Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dispute_Resolution. I'm not trying to be annoying, but it looks like you are replicating things that already exist: first the DRN volunteer guideline page, and now the DR project. There is a shortage of volunteers in WP, and large backlogs of work to be done. It is best if we don't multiply the number of guidelines and projects unless there is a compelling reason. If the existing items are not meeting your needs, it is best to try to enhance them before replicating them. --Noleander (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Just because you don't like it or don't get it, is no reason to try and make some point. Regardless of what you are trying to do or not, the outcome appears to be the very thing you claim to not be attempting.

Point blank, after we created the Volunteer guide we did indeed begin to see more volunteers begin to start at DR/N for the first or second time and we now have more active volunteers than we did before it. Project Conflict resolution picks up where the DR Project leaves off - Conduct. It is actually very simple. I am encouraged by DR/N...not trying to replace it. Frankly that is a very innaccruate accusation.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you answer questions (2) and (3) above? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no concensus for a merger and I boldly created the guide to elaborate on becoming involved in the board as it was clear, to me at least, that many editors were not clear on the best ways to start. A simple sign up page may have a small summary of guidelines, but we can have a full page to go into further detail. None of this is controversial and as it appears this is a matter that you have with just me, and no one else has weighed in, please request a third opinion if you feel you wish to take this furhter up the DR process. Thanks. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

To make sure I have this right: in your view, the original Volunteering page is a "sign up page" and the new page is the "detailed" guidelines for volunteers? Is that correct? --Noleander (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much. I see it as a Landing page.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, I guess I could live with that, provided that some of the duplication were removed from the "sign up page", so that updates don't have to be made in two places. Your post, when you created that new page, said "I am putting together a manual of style for volunteers. Please feel free to help add to it." which really didn't convey what was happening ... so I doubt many editors looked to review what was happening. Do you have any objection to me removing duplicate material from the old page, and just using links to the new page? --Noleander (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I do object. Nothing is broken, so there is nothing to fix. I disagree that the edit summary failed to convey my meaning. Many articles and pages have summaries of more detailed pages. If anything perhaps we could expand the summary but we don't call the content redundant and remove it. This is becoming sort of dead horse at this point.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I saw this discussion and viewed both the original guide and the new one created by Amadscientist. I'm pleased that a more comprehensive guide was created, in the second survey I ran some comments were made that the existing DRN volunteering guide lacked some details, and the new guide I feel is more substantial. I do think that having these on two separate pages would create confusion for volunteers. Not everyone is as good at dispute resolution as we are, and it can be a daunting task. Needing to read over two pages, IMHO, is too much. I've edited the volunteering page merging in most of the content from the new guide into the old one, then reverted my changes so they can be reviewed first. the version I propose we adopt. What do you all think? Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 10:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

SZ: Can you clarify: It sounds like you are proposing to merge the two; but when I click on that link, that page contains the text

Main page: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteer guide

... is that just an oversight and that link should be removed? Or are you proposing to leave the two pages separate? In any case, I think a single page is adequate (it should only be split into two pages if the single page gets over about 10 screenfuls (it only take 4 screens in my platform). Both pages have some good gems that should definitely be retained. --Noleander (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Never mind: I looked at your changes more carefully, and it is clear you are merging the "best of" both pages into one. And that "main" link is not supposed to be there. I support your proposal. --Noleander (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Still do not support a merge-change or deletion of the Volunteer Guide.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I proposed a middle ground (removing duplicate material) but you refuse to budge, and appear to be taking a "my way or the highway" approach. There are two editors (who were not involved in the guideline duplication effort) who think this duplication is not the most efficient way to present information to volunteers. Plus there is the puzzling circumstance that the duplication was presented to the DRN community as a "manual of style". Unless you can find another editor to agree with you, I don't see an alternative to merging. --Noleander (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I've implemented SZ's suggested approach of combining "the best of both" pages into one page. If anyone things the guideline should be split into two, feel free to start a conversation in this talk page, but this time such a section should be named "Should the Volunteer guideline be split into overview page & detailed page" or something like that. --Noleander (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus to make these changes so you should probably expect I will return most of it boldly myself in some form. Why bother with discussion if you aren't either. There was no consensus for the change and Steven was trying to allow some discussion to take place so a consensus could occur. Seems an odd way to deal with things on the "Dispute resolution Noticeboard" where you yourself claim we have no special powers but then turn around and ignore the rules. I will certainly leave whatever is a clear improvement but much was just edit warring and doing an end run around policy and guidelines.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Clearly we are not able to form a consensus here. I suggest editors that do not agree with having an actual volunteer guide simply create an AFD so that the general community can help form a decision either way. Seems the best way to avoid furthering this dispute. And the irony is not lost on me.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

How about an RfC? --Noleander (talk) 01:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)