Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. 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 5

←

Archive 10

Being welcoming

I've had a long conversation this morning with Steve Zhang in which he has shamed me, convinced me to abandon my curmudgeonly ways, and to be more friendly and welcoming to editors bringing disputes here. After thinking about how best to implement my new ... cuddliness, I've decided to start responding to newly-listed disputes with the following welcome message.

Good golly gee whillikers, rainbows and kittens and unicorns and MILKSHAKES, we're deeply gratified and desperately glad that you've chosen to honor us by putting your hopes and trust and faith — yes faith, by golly — in us unworthy minions here at DRN by bringing your dispute to us. So welcome, WELCOME to the dispute resolution process. I truly doubt that we can live up to your expectations, however meager they may be, but we'll do our dead level best. Thank you, thank you, thank you for ~~dumping this steaming pile of ... oops~~ bringing this to us.

What do y'all think? Too much? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC) (Sorry, Steve, I just couldn't help myself...)

Firm support - A suitable new direction for DRN. I propose the background is made pink and sparkly also with pictures of said unicorns to establish a relaxed environment. Candyfloss is a must also. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 19:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Needs some puppies. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Needs glitter... --Cameron11598 (Converse) 01:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

What...no rainbow?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, okay, too much... I've reconsidered and will tone it down:

We're glad to have you here at DRN: Welcome to Hell. If you can force your way through that hoarder's mound of fast food wrappers, soda cans, pirated DVDs, and game controllers around you, waddle your corpulent posterior up the stairs from your dank basement bedroom and tell your sainted mother that, as utterly unique as it may be, that you may miss a couple of meals because this is going to be One Wild Ride. Now STFU, get a good grip on that mouse, and let's go, scumbag.

Better? Welcoming enough? ;-) — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

-.- NO! Heh. Bad TransporterMan! Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 12:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Being serious for a minute, I've had a chat with a few people over the last few days (and one with TransporterMan this morning at around 3am), I emphasised my desire for DRN to have a more friendly and welcoming approach to people that file requests at DRN - it's all about bringing about a change to the climate of DRN. If people come to DRN all angry and frustrated, and we are apathetic and robotic towards them, not much will change. If we act civil, the best we can hope for is for them to be civil (but often people can be argumentative and unwilling to compromise but still be civil). But if we are welcoming, even friendly, then it may encourage them to act the same way. It's a technique that works well for me at work, an angry customer calls in all hot-headed, and I will talk to them in a calming, very friendly way, and by the end of the call they are very happy and have a different view than the start of the call. The same applies here. If I saw something like what TransporterMan wrote I'd probably vomit, but I think a simple "Hello, I am Steve, welcome to DRN" or something like that is fine, and focusing on how to resolve the dispute as opposed to explaining the rules of DRN and the way the process works (esssentially, if the guidelines are being generally followed, there's no need to mention them).

I also think that we should consider rejigging the volunteers list to be a bit more like the Teahouse hosts list (courtesy of Amad for this brilliant idea) - it allows for a bit more individuality for each volunteers and makes it a bit more human for people coming to DRN. I have another idea about the management of DRN but that will go in a separate section. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 09:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

All joking aside (mostly, at least), I do support Steve's ideas (though I'm going to have to grit my teeth when I'm being all warm and fuzzy). However, I must say that since volunteers here are "just another editor" and "have no special powers or authority" that welcoming people here reminds me of an old comedy routine, I think by George Carlin, who complained about flight attendants saying "Welcome to Such-and-such" on landing when they had just arrived at the same time you did. How can we welcome other editors to a place where we have no more right to be than they do, eh? Just sayin'... Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Recognition and basic respect for each other's role in the dispute. The entire point of a mediated discussion is...wait for it....a mediator.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree that being inviting is important: volunteers should do everything to make parties feel welcome. I've seen a few situations in the past few months where volunteers were a bit abrupt to parties (often in the context of quick-closing inappropriate cases). Even when parties are wrong to file a case, volunteers should bend over backwards to avoid alienating or offending the parties.

As for making the volunteer list fancier: fancier formatting may slow down some editors who want to become volunteers ... today they just add their name, takes about 5 seconds. On the other hand, I can see how the teahouse approach looks more modern and inviting. I have no strong feelings one way or another. --Noleander (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The Volunteer profile page would be optional surely. The main function would be to simply let editors click and see the volunteers in something more than their signature. I favorite Wikipedia page that you edit, a favorite image to represent you or even your own pic if you have one. It could be linked to randomly display editors profiles on the front page. The whole point of CC by 3.0 is the right to reuse and ideas and cades etc. The use of Teahouse may never be copied but some of the more basic idea of random display of select text is an old concept with new application worth immolating here in our own unique way.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Help with dispute re Pope Francis page

I asked for help with a dispute on ANI, where it was suggested I bring the issue here, instead. Unfortunately, I do not think the dispute can end without help from outside. Here is the discussion on the talk page of Pope Francis: here. Here is the quote that is in question: "Unlike John Paul II, who as a child had positive memories of the Jews of his native Poland but due to the Holocaust had no Jewish community to interact with in Poland as an adult, Pope Francis has maintained a sustained and very positive relationship with a living, breathing [Jewish] community in Buenos Aires." Essentially, one user (and only one user), Herzen is making the claim that:

The Jerusalem Post is not an appropriate source because Israel is an "apartheid state"
Using a quote about the Holocaust that mentions Pope Francis and Pope John Paul II implies that Pope Benedict XVI (because he is NOT mentioned) is a Nazi(!)
Mentioning the word "Holocaust" is automatically contentious, especially in the minds of "Muslims and Arabs"
Because of the alleged "contentiousness" of this quote, it violates BLP and can be deleted regardless of the discussion on the talk page (where, by the way, no other editor who has weighed in has agreed that the Jerusalem Post should be ruled out as a source, or that there is any contentiousness in the quote either because the Holocaust is mentioned or Benedict XVI is not mentioned). I find the claims against this quote to be inappropriate in and of themselves...and unreasonable. If the quote is deleted again, I will not revert because it is already to the point of an edit war and I have never been in an edit war...so I would appreciate help from this page instead. Thanks, NearTheZoo (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: ~~I think I have posted this on the wrong page and should move it to Dispute resolution instead. Sorry! I'll do that now. NearTheZoo (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)~~ I see this is not the correct way to start the resolution process. I now understand how to do that and the dispute resolution request is registered. Sorry for my confusion. NearTheZoo (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It depends on whether or not they close that AN/I report or if they keep it open. I had closed the DR/N here but when I looked a little closer it is possible that that filing may close shortly. If it it still active we will have to close the filing here. One DR venue at a time please.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I waited. The AN/I may stay opened for a bit longer. When it closes just re-file with all the participants involved listed again please.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post should not be conflated with the state of Israel. "Pope Benedict is a Nazi because he is not mentioned there" is an argument from silence. It cannot be used inside Wikipedia to establish that Benedict was a Nazi and it cannot be interpreted as affirming such fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be some confusion here. Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard (the page you are reading now) is the talk page for discussing improvements to the dispute resolution noticeboard page and to get help with the nuts and bolts of filing a case. It is not the right place to discuss disputes. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard is the place to resolve content disputes, and is where ANI suggested that this dispute be brought.

This is the correct place for discussing when to file a DRN case when there is an open ANI case. It is not the right place to discuss whether or not (former) Pope Benedict is/was a Nazi. Please save that argument for the DRN case when it opens. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

White privilege

Please see the "volunteer's note" on that listing. I closed it, then reopened it. Would someone else take a look and see what they think about whether or not it ought to be closed. I truly am not certain. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

my totally unhelpful comment personally I would have liked to see more of a discussion on the talk page before it was brought here but if the editor is worried about keeping their cool talking it out there and think calmer heads would prevail here I see no problem with them getting help here. However I think it could go either way. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 21:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I posted my thoughts in the DRN case (I recommend close). --Noleander (talk) 01:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Should it be closed now that it is at WP:ANI ? --Cameron11598 (Converse) 06:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

In my way of thinking, there's no hurry. It looks like the ANI filing may be winding down, but on the other hand the listing editor here may be withdrawing from participation in WP for awhile. I'd say to give it a day or two to see if s/he's really leaving — many folks say they're going to do so, then change their minds — and, if s/he means it, then close the listing here. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

White Privlage

I'm going to close the dispute, the original party has decided to take a long wiki break. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 21:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Bot is malfunctioning

Resolved

– the bot's operator says the problem should be fixed --Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The bot is not updating the case summary list or, apparently, notifying participants. I'm bot-clueless, so could someone who knows what's behind the curtain check into it, please? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: I have notified the Bot's operator --Cameron11598 (Converse) 21:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes

I have a question about Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes. I am getting very little participation, but I am reluctant to close it because of the fact that I previously closed it so that an arbcom case could proceed. What should I do? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The major participants said that they have no given up but need more time, so I am giving it to them. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder why it is that so many threads on this talk page sit there with no replies. Is it that most DRN volunteers don't read this page? That they see no point in discussing how we should handle various situations? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Could another volunteer take on Lutici, Pomerania during the High Middle Ages

I was tempted to close this case as a fail since it just seems to be spinning its wheels in words and making little actual progress. I'm being drawn into the dispute more than I would like and asked to make judgements which I feel are far outside my areas of knowledge (accuracy of historical sources etc). The case is starting to frustrate me and I feel I am losing my objectivity so do not want to close the discussion or continue in bad faith as it is unfair to the editors involved. If another DRN volunteer could take it on and evaluate the situation I'd appreciate it. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

We still need assistence in this dispute, there is currently no DRN volunteer active on this request. Skäpperöd (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Alas, we still have an issue with volunteers not reading this page. I suggest posting requests on some volunteer talk pages, starting with the more active volunteers. I would jump in, but I am on a hot engineering project. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to recuse myself on this one, so can't help. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I have read over the dispute both the DRN thread and on the talk page, it looks like they will be unable to gather a consensus here at DRN. After talking with Cabe6403 I have closed the thread and referred them to MedCom hopefully they will be able to resolve the issue in a more formal setting. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 19:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Close Copernican principle?

The case was filed by an editor who has not been involved in the discussion or article editing (at least not in regard to the matters said to be in dispute). While that is not, in itself, a reason to close the listing, it appears to me that discussion is progressing on the article talk page, if perhaps a bit slowly and with some article-churning. I believe it should be closed as premature. If anyone else agrees with me, please close the filing or leave a note here and I will do so. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Suggestion withdrawn after further study. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge tiny Suggestions page?

The page Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/suggestions seems unnecessary, in light of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering page. The Suggestions page doesn't seem to add any value. Thoughts on merging it into the Volunteering page? --Noleander (talk) 12:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Merging it in seems logical. It's been around since MedCab so I'd really like to see it retained in some format, but I do think that merging is the most logical thing to do. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 02:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with merge. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I did the merge. I did not include the "If" poem. --Noleander (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

DRN organiser

Hi all,

So, as I mentioned above, I have another proposal that I think we should consider. At present, while as a collective we work on resolving disputes at DRN as well as generally keeping the place sane, there is no-one who is really responsible for the day-to-day operations of DRN. That said, I think that having a "boss" who is "in charge" of DRN would be A Bad Idea, but DRN has come under criticism lately for a lack of a "go-to" person, someone that is responsible for things like guiding new volunteers, maintenance and ensuring that the process overall runs smoothly.

The Teahouse uses a model, where the role is called a "Maitre d" where teahouse hosts go on a roster of sorts to do things like keeping the hosts page in check, maintenance, and monitoring and measuring the success of the Teahouse. I think a similar role here (not called the maitre d though) would be useful at DRN - while I am the creator of DRN and have done a lot of work with it, this is a community process which is managed by the community. What do you all think of the idea? Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 10:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Would we model the process of appointing the organizer (I like the word coordinator better but that's just me) something like an RFA? --Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

RfA??????? Aieeee! Run away! Run away!! — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC) (Actually, I think Steve had something more in mind like this. Gasp, gasp, gasp.) — TM

I think this could be a good idea so long as we define their role clearly in advance. I also think we would need to set a minimum level of contribution to the DRN (either simply in terms of edits to DRN or something more complex like cases involved with) Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

RFA - no way. I thinking keeping it as lightweight as possible. I prefer the name "organiser" - coordinator to me is more full-on and permanent. I'd like input from all the DRN volunteers and from the community at large on this idea. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 23:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea a lot, and a agree "coordinator" might be a better term. One thing I think might be particularly useful for such a person to do, at least for people like me and I think quite a few others who might want to help with the process here, is if whoever serves in this role might also maybe keep some sort of list of areas of some knowledge of some of the other volunteers. I know that for me myself one of the biggest problems is, basically, not having a clue WTF people are talking about in the first place, and maybe if whoever is selected for whatever position could indicate to volunteers that "this falls in your stated area of interest" that might help a lot, at least for those areas where there are people who have some degree of interest or knowledge. It might also make it easier for the more regular volunteers to not be overworked, because I have a feeling they would probably be the ones "stuck with" the disputes that aren't within any other volunteers' area of knowledge. John Carter (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, but to me "coordinator" seems to be a more permanent, "in charge" role than organiser. Another thing that has been mentioned is how would this role be selected, or would it be an open-to-anyone thing? I think the more open the requirements, the less "full on" the role should be. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

So, Dalek Supreme is out as a name then? Curses! Foiled again!! I like everything about organi?er except for the fact that there are two ways to spell it, the UK way that my dear mother taught me and the USA way that the California school system insisted on. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, WP policy dictates that the version of English that was first used in the creation of a page determines whether it should be American or British English. And since I created DRN, we've got British English. So, organiser it is :) (Besides, everyone knows organizer is a typo. ;-) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 01:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Since the person will hold the role of Welcomingness Enforcer, how about "High Warm Fuzzy DRN Kitten of the Week", or [[WP:HWFDRNKW]]? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

To those that were linked to the talk page

Hi all. Just so everyone is up to speed, I'd like your opinion on the above proposal (a rotating DRN organiser role) along with other discussions we have had:

Restructuring the volunteers list to be more like the the Teahouse host page - making it more human for both volunteers (gives them the ability to tell a bit about themselves and their areas of expertise) and for DR participants (to see we are people, not just a list of names).
Being more friendly and welcoming in general (see the above threads)
Separating the list of volunteers into active/inactive based on activity to create a better representation of who participants can go to for assistance, while allowing inactive volunteers to resume assisting without any hurdles
And any other associated discussions above that take your fancy.

Feel free to give your opinions below - I would really like to know what you all think so we can keep moving DRN forward. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Steven, I don't mind the idea, but is it essential or merely change for change sake to resemble this tea house thing? Also is being friendly and welcoming as appropriate as being fair and accurate? I generally have found the best in dispute resolution outside of Wikipedia tend to be far from friendly and welcoming as remaining emotionally detached from the matter even intrinsic to the DRN itself in this case would be essential to ensure that our activities aren't tainted by any need to please or appease. Also discussion as to what is active and inactive would need to be clarified too, naturally. Call me a cynic, but I think that dispute resolution and mediation versus ... a chat focused concierge / welcome to Wikipedia (which is the jist I got from a brief examination of treehouse, uh, damn Freud, may be incompatible. It would also have to be rotated through volunteers to avoid it being perceived as a position of authority, but you appear to have--ab initio--steered DRN clear of rank and file which has been refreshing and one of the reasons for it's longevity without drama, in fighting, or nonsense that I can see, and one I heartily commend you and fellow DRN members for!

John Carter, et al. Just putting it out there; if you ever encounter a DRN related subject that is very convoluted or in a field that hurts your brain, hit me up, I thrive on such things. I have extensive academic qualifications (bachelor of laws, communication sciences, science, masters of education, science, doctor of laws (and currently planning a PhD just in case my masochistic self destructive banality isn't obvious enough)) and am quite well known[[1]] as someone to turn to to debunk pseudoscience, or comment on the impossible or even improbable when it comes to anything from medicine to physics, or matters transcendental to normal sane minds that requires researching the topic before even taking on the dispute.

Please never feel as though a topic is too overwhelming, if you feel it is too confusing though I am more than happy to step in (if you need me in a hurry @bashpr0mpt on Twitter will get my attention within a day or so) and don't mind things that're frustratingly difficult to comprehend, and I've encountered several of those in the past which is what got me involved to begin with! These kinds of disputes are what I love to assist in, as I get the added benefit of learning about a subject I may otherwise not have been afforded such a viewpoint of or the same level of depth of understanding. I live to learn and spend even my free time persuing academic matters that are inconsequential to anything and often completely irellevant simply because I 'need to know' about how it works, or why it is so. So again, please poke me when you get things like that! :) BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that such a change is essential to the longevity of the DRN process. You can read my large post above (section titled "Back to Basics") or talk to TransporterMan about what I talked through with him, but I think that the objectives to being more friendly and welcoming while remaining detached to the matter are not mutually exclusive. One does not need to pour their heart and soul into something to be effective, nor does someone need to be stand-offish or robotic. Don't confuse being welcoming with doing whatever possible to appease. We're here to resolve disputes in a fashion that ensures Wikipedia policy is adhered to. I just think we can do it in a more relaxed way than we do now. While the Teahouse and DRN accomplish different things, they do so in a similar way: A user comes with an enquiry or problem, and volunteers assist them with resolving it. It's not as simple as that, but at the core it's pretty much what it is. I feel quite strongly about this. DRN has come a long way from where it started, but I worry that along the way we've lost a bit of the human touch, and making these changes I feel will improve DRN quite a bit. If not, we can always revert to the status quo. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 02:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Stevin I do like the idea of giving our areas of expertise and the rotating schedule for who would be the organiser (*cringes at the British syntax*)

perhaps we should see if it would be possible for the bot to leave a reminder on our talk pages when it is our turn in the cycle.

I do have another suggestion, perhaps we should have a monthly or every other month meeting in our IRC channel #wikipedia-en-DRN so we are all on the same page. It might not be all that practicle though considering the considerable time differences we have. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 02:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Meeting planner has become my best friend lately. I suggest we could use that. I like the idea of having fortnightly/monthly alignment catch-ups - I normally find Skype/Google Hangouts a better way of collaborating, but recognise that some may be averse to the idea. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 02:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

To reply to Steven Zhang's message to give attention to this topic, I am hesitant to become involved in anything that will add more bureaucracy and policy to this project, but due to my current feelings about WP, (which are that there are problems behind the scenes), AND to my notice that certain past policies have been discarded, (I just yesterday learned that Check User has been closed)........I'd have to SUPPORT this idea in principle. With the reservation that the agenda be to improve and maintain the DRN process as something useful to help editors and WP.

Whatever you guys decide to do at this point I will commit to watching DRN more carefully for the time being, and SUPPORTING the effort to maintain it as a valuable resource for editors having problems24.0.133.234 (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I am a little late to the party here, but I think the Teahouse maitre d' model works very well (speaking as one who is around the Teahouse a lot and who has served as maitre d' several times) and something like that could be applicable here as well. Some functions of this role, which we are calling organizer (sorry, I meant organiser, but that gets an ugly pink line under it, so informally, I am going to use organizer =p) I think already are being performed by some of our more experienced mediators (Transporter Man, I am talking about you) such as removing cases not appropriate for this board which is good and can continue, but I agree a "go-to guy" might not be a bad idea. Go Phightins! 20:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Behold, I am become Shiva's Dog, destroyer of squirrels. (Apologies to Robert Openheimer, not to mention the Bhagavad Gita.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

A little late as well (RL stuff), but userpages exist to say something about yourself, so I am not in favor of making this a Teahouse-style page. We can be more welcoming, but faking welcomes can be seen from a mile away (not many people in a dispute would like a touchy-feely mediator. A good starting point would be subpages (supported in the past, I tried unsuccesfully to change it afterwards). The seperation of active and inactives seems good. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 00:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with general principles that (a) DRN should be more welcoming; and (b) DRN should be more flexible. Not too sure that more bureaucracy is needed or desirable. Addressing three specific proposals:

1) Teahouse-style volunteer descriptors: Why not just use links to user pages? Elaborate volunteer data could be an impediment to new volunteers

2) Marking volunteers as inactive: Seems useful. But rather than segregate into 2 lists, why not just add a postiive note after the existing list entries? E.g.

Joe Smith - (Note: This volunteer has participated in DRN within the past 3 months)

3) New DRN Organizer role - Functionally, good idea. But there is nothing stopping us from doing that today. SZ or TM or myself or anyone could start "ensuring that DRN is running smoothly". All the regular DRN volunteers already do housekeeping on the DRN page, etc. We already have lower-case "organizers". Creating a new, formal title seems a bit ostentatious.

I concur that we should make DRN more welcoming: The best way to achieve that is for the community to encourage volunteers to adopt a humane, positive attitude (and to discourage the converse). --Noleander (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Wording of conflict-of-interest guidance

In Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering, I changed the wording of the conflict-of-interest guidance from:

If you have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response, do not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to your participation in a dispute, either withdraw and ask another volunteer to replace you or bring the issue to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not you should continue.

to

If you have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in the dispute which would give the appearance of bias, do not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to your participation in a dispute, either withdraw and ask another volunteer to replace you.

I figure the latter approach helps ensure the integrity of the DRN process. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert. --Noleander (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I like the "appearance of bias" addition, but by removing the last sentence, you allow situations like the recent one where someone in a dispute refused to follow our guidelines on discussing article content instead of user conduct, and demanded that the volunteer recuse himself for daring to enforce the rules. The disputant even nominated DRN for deletion, with his first listed reason for deletion being that our content and conduct rules exist. We should not give disputants absolute veto power to do whatever they want and the authority to fire any DRN volunteer who asks them to follow our rules. The previous wording allowed the volunteer to seek consensus on the DRN talk page if that happens. The new wording does not. No other noticeboard works this way. Try refusing to follow the rules at WP:RSN or WP:COIN, then demanding that whoever tells you to follow the rules recuse himself. See how far that gets you.

Extended content

If anyone is interested (which I doubt), here are the details of the incident I describe above. Anyone who actually has a life can skip this.

It started when Rschen7754 refused to follow our guidelines on discussing article content instead of user conduct,[2][3] had his comment collapsed and was told by DRN Volunteer Amadscientistthat this was not allowed[4] reverted Amadscientist with a comment saying that he doesn't agree with our content/conduct rules,[5][6] had the offending comments removed by Amadscientist,[7] reverted Amadscientist again,[8] was re-reverted[9] hatted his comments saying "I decline to participate"[10] had the hatted comments struck (by me)[11], then nominated DRN for deletion[12] with his first reason for deletion being that our content and conduct rules exist,[13] and insisting that Amadscientist recuse himself for daring to point out that there are rules about editors that refuse to conduct themselves in the manner specified by our guidelines.[14]

Then, after all the above drama, Rschen7754 finally revealed for the first time what his actual beef with Amadscientist is. Apparantly they clashed sometime in the past over a GA nomination.[15] After some digging, I found that discussion: Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 17#GAN reviewer concern If Rschen7754 had simply pointed out at the start that he and Amadscientist had had previous interactions, I would have suggested recusal myself. Instead Rschen7754 repeatedly made the argument "I don't agree with the DRN guidelines, and therefor the DRN guidelines don't apply to me" and that disagreeing with that assertion means you must be biased and must recuse yourself.

Normally, I would not bother documenting a closed discussion in such detail, but after the recent "stop making these accusations, or I will be forced to report them" threat,[16][17] I felt that I should document the incident. This is, of course, a W.O.M.B.A.T.

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I was not aware of that particular situation that gave rise to the conflict-of-interest policy in the first place (or maybe I just blanked it out of my memory :-). My goal in proposing this new wording was to respond to SZ's prompting above that we make DRN more inviting & neutral. I thought that editors would feel more comfortable coming to DRN if they knew they could request (demand?) a replacement volunteer if the first one was not behaving well. I was modeling it after the US court system, where, generally, a plaintiff gets to veto the first judge selected for the case... but only the first judge - after that they are stuck with the 2nd judge. I'll go ahead and restore the original wording. --Noleander (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Since we're talking about this, Amadscientist had changed the language on the main page header and it was out of conceptual sync with the language on the volunteering page. I've changed it back, but it's still open for discussion, of course. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure exactly what wording is best, but we want to convey the fact that a request for another volunteer will almost always end up with a new volunteer, even if there is no real reason given other than personal preference. After all, we don't own the cases we work on, and who would want to work on a case where they are not wanted? Balanced with this would be the option of seeking consensus from the other volunteers when it appears that there is gaming the system by deliberately violating the guidelines and then demanding recusal as a direct response to being told that you cannot do that. We want to convey that we are friendly and that we are more than happy to step aside if we think that will help, but also that we are not punching bags or doormats with fewer rights than ordinary editors. Ordinary editors are always allowed to temporarily stop doing whatever they are doing that is getting someone upset and to instead talk things over on the talk page and seek consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right: there is no reason for the guidelines to permit a free veto without any discussion. --Noleander (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I prefer version one rather than version two for the same reason as Noleander. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The manner it was edited into the header was and is too confrontational and the language not at all professional. The simple fact is that the policy is still no different than before. Any editor can ask another to recuse themselves or step back from the DRN request. This is how I had edited it and I still support the version as accurate and fair and does not lean towards either the volunteer or the participant, while Transportionman's revert of the header back to his wording seems to be done to purposely take aim at the volunteers and in particular makes me feel as if this aimed directly at me. My version:

Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.

Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia.

Editors that have strong conflicts of interest with the subject matter or involved parties must not volunteer for that dispute.

Any editor may object to another editor participating. If you are asked in good faith to step back as either a participant or volunteer please do so or use the DRN talk page to discuss it.

This is directly from the guidelines. Volunteers that have strong conflicts of interest etc. is how it is worded.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Amadscientist I don't think this is in any way aimed at you. everyone However I'm not sure I'm happy with the rewrite, what I object to is

If any editor objects to your participation in a dispute, either withdraw and ask another volunteer to replace you.

It makes it sound as though, if an editor does not think the dispute is going in their favor they can keep asking for a change of volunteer until they get their way. If I'm misunderstanding the point feel free to trout me. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 20:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I just now looked here for the first time in several days. @Amadscientist: Please don't take it that I was criticizing you on a personal level, I certainly did not mean it that way and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I consider you to be a valued and respected colleague and friend and I hope you feel the same. The fact that I disagree with you at times doesn't mean anything different. @Everyone: The language as reverted corresponds to virtually identical language in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#Mediating. My main concern in reverting was that the changes caused the language to get out of sync conceptually. I would contend that "dealings which would bias their response" is conceptually different, and more to the point, than "conflict of interest" and that "conflicts of interest with the subject matter" is confusing. Moreover, "If any editor objects" does not give permission to complain like "Any editor may object", but only addresses what should happen if someone does. (I note that between the header and the guideline that there's a must vs. should conflict in the objection sentence that I missed that needs to be fixed.) As for the expansion of the objection concept to include participants other than volunteers, that's an interesting idea which might ought to be discussed, but I don't think it ought to be mixed with the volunteer provision. Best regards, and again apologies to Amad if I came across wrong, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: The way I wrote it originally (and as it now stands) was intended to address that concern, "If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute." This is just my opinion, but my feeling is that if a participant objects that ordinarily it indicates that, whether justified or unjustified, that your effectiveness in that dispute is probably impaired and that in most cases you ought to ask for replacement and go. If you feel that someone is gaming the decision, however, you should be able to go to the talk page for other volunteers' advice and then decide. But I used the word "comment" very intentionally rather than "decide"; the decision should still be up to you except in the most extreme cases. (And in those cases we shouldn't need a rule to get you out; the consensus against your continuation ought to be pretty plain.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I accept that TM was not trying to use me to make a point and understand we are not going to agree on everything. I believe the purpose of including the wording that both the participant and the volunteer could be asked to step back is per the guidelines. Yes, a volunteer may be asked to step back, but we have also, already established that participants may be asked to do such. It hasn't really changed, just worded more neutrally. I think mentioning both is balance to what the huidelines state and don'e appear to be for or against either participant or volunteer.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

IP Editor and DRN Volunteer?

We never really defined whether an IP editor can be a dispute resolution volunteer. Now we have one on the list -- and he has been blocked for 48 hours for sock puppetry. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Albert14nx05y. Do we want to require all DRN volunteers to be registered? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

It comes down to accountability. I think any administrative type task, whether it be assisting in the resolution of disputes, accepting new articles for creation, reviewing pending changes, or any other of a number of tasks should require not only registration and accountability, but also a requirement to complete some kind of training for the task to make sure that these people have the mental tools and knowledgability they need to deal with the situation properly. Technical 13 (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I see no problem with IPs acting as DRN volunteers. Mostly as a matter of principle: I don't like establishing classes of editors in WP; and I've never liked the fact that volunteers have to put their name in a list. Did that IP actually volunteer for a case? The sockpuppet issue is not conclusive: most sockpuppets use registered names, not IPs. Has there been a situation in the past where an IP volunteered for a DRN case and problems ensued? If not, this may be a solution looking for a problem. --Noleander (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I think there was a brief discussion about this previously, but though it makes me grit my teeth I think we ought to allow it. My problem is not with them being anonymous, per se, but more an issue that most — but not all — IP's don't have enough experience and that if they're on a dynamic IP that they may not take care to assure the disputants that they're the same person when their address changes. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I can see good arguments either way, but I am leaning toward saying that being an IP editor is no problem, but having an often-changing dynamic IP is, because you cannot follow the user's history. The fact that you need to add yourself to a list of volunteers pretty much limits it to users with fairly stable IP addresses. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Provided the IP is in good standing (not being repedatively warned about WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA) I have no problem with them helping out here --Cameron11598 (Converse) 04:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I brought this up before when I noticed the IP on the list. I tend to see this no different than when we removed a registered user who was idef blocked. As long as the user is in good standing with no conflicts and does not have a registered account I think it would be fine.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Please note that the IP in question was blocked for 48 hours for sockpuppetry, then blocked for a week for violating edit restrictions an admin placed on him, then blocked from his own talk page for violating the edit restrictions there.

Dispute on multiple Wikipedias

Hi,

Giggette is trying to replace this map (very reliable because supported by recent, specialized and very quoted sources) by hers, only supported by contradictory maps randomly picked from blogs, on a lot of versions of Wikipedia, now that she understands she won't impose her POV by an edit war on Commons.

Giggette knows that in her map the Aztec territory between Teozapotlan and Xoconochco is undocumented and contradicted by very reliable and recent sources like Berdan & Smith 1996, Berdan & Smith 2013, but she still wants to impose it.

Commons administrators Jmabel and KTo288 said on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard that this is not their problem.

What should I do? Who can help me on so much Wikipedias?

El Comandante (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that there's no simple solution to your issue. Each national Wikipedia stands on its own, with its own policies and dispute resolution processes. It has to be worked out one Wikipedia at a time. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC) PS: One more thing: Your comment here will not be accepted as a request for help at this noticeboard. If you wish to file a case here, please click the "Request dispute resolution" button at the left top of the main DRN page and fill in and submit the form. Do in the "Resolving the dispute" section include a link to the discussion at commons, but the "Location of dispute" box should only have a link to articles or talk pages here at English Wikipedia. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. It sounds quite incredible that local admins can't help benevolous users to organize a global response against such POV pushing... If you're right, I'm afraid to have no other solution than to ask to some superuser like stewards or Jimbo Wales himself to help me, because I can't fight only by myself against so many multiple vandalisms. El Comandante (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not going to work, either. Administrators, stewards, and even Jimbo have no authority to intervene in content disputes, except as ordinary editors with no special powers. Due to the wiki model of Wikipedia, content can only be decided by consensus. Except where policy specifically says otherwise — such as with copyright violations or slander — content at each Wikipedia is controlled exclusively by the community. I'm afraid you're not going to find any easy way out in this case. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a tough one. One thing that might help is the fact that if an RfC establishes that, say, the German Wikipedia has a strong consensus on something, that makes it easier to get consensus on the English Wikipedia. That helps a little, but it is still a really tough problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there a wikimedia equivalent for WP:SPEEDYDELETE with respect to nonsense/hoax/something-less-malicious-sounding/etc? TippyGoomba (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Cross wiki vandalism is usually handled by the Stewards they are very careful when choosing when to act though, they usually leave it up to local administrators. That is the only thing I can think of that could help. Otherwise I recommend asking around their equivalent of the village pump--Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Todd Bentley

Edits made today by anonymous IP reflect accurate references from current Fresh Fire Ministries site based in Pineville, NC, USA as well as video-blog archives directly from Rick Joyner and Bill Johnson, Joyner the cited director of committee overseeing Bentley restoration counseling. neutral citings needed for Joel's Army references, as attack sites abound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.111.101 (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to make a request for dispute resolution, please go to the DRN main page and click the button at the top of the page labeled "Request dispute resolution". Requests made on this talk page will not be answered. Regards, 13:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

An Bord Pleanála

would someone mind taking over this dispute? I'm not going to have reliable access to a computer for the next month or so. Cameron11598 (Converse) 17:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

bot

the clerk bot appears to be down. I left a note on earwig's talk page. This is just a quick FYI. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 06:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Apparently it's a problem with the toolserver, and not something Earwig can fix; it sounds like it could be a while before it's fixed. CarrieVS (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's running again, but now is skipping disputes filed in the interim and misattributing volunteer posts. I've emailed Steve Zhang, who as the creator of all this knows about these things, to see if he can put in a fix. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't actually running (not since a few days ago), so I'm not completely sure what you mean, although it is now as of fifteen minutes ago. One issue that sticks out is the bot not identifying a comment from User:TransporterMan001 as a volunteer edit. This makes sense considering that username isn't on the volunteer list (User:TransporterMan is). I suppose the bot could check userpage redirects, although this seems prone to abuse. If it's a real problem, you could add the alt to the list. I'm not sure of other solutions.

Also, for Steven Zhang (or others), whatever happened to the plans to make each case its own page? I wrote the code to support that months ago, but it's been sitting unused. — Earwig ^talk 21:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Now that the bot's running again, all is well, but — just so you know — what I was talking about was that the status block listed me, rather than Carrie, as the closer on Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#talk:fractal_antenna (now fixed) and didn't list a couple of disputes at all. As for my alternate account, I use that account for the very purpose of avoiding recognition as a volunteer edit. (So as to avoid giving the false impression in the status block that I've opened or taken a case when all I've actually done is some minor pre-opening administration, which I've discussed previously here.) As for the separate page thing, I don't think we ever came to a consensus to switch to that. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure it had been updated? There were two fractal antenna cases, which were both closed, and the older one was at the bottom of the list when the bot stopped running (I don't remember who closed it though). It confused me a bit too. CarrieVS (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't find it in the bot archives so maybe that was it — indeed, I did close the earlier case — and I was just confused. Thanks for the clarification. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

"New volunteers - please add yourself to this page - it will help the bot who maintains DRN. Thanks :)"

How does the bot maintain DRN by the list of volunteers? (This is last sentence in the Dispute resolution noticeboard edit window boilerplate.)Curb Chain (talk) 05:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The first person to post gets noted in the created column, the first person to post who is on the list of volunteers gets noted in last volunteer column. Also, the first post by someone who is on the list of volunteers changes the status from new to open. Of course anyone -- including an IP editor who has never posted to Wikipedia before -- can put themselves on the list of volunteers, so it's not like there is some elite with special powers. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Subpages for each case

The suggestion that we create separate subpages for each case which would be transcluded onto the main DRN page (similarly to WP:SPI) seems to be brought up fairly regularly - [18], [19], and most recently [20] - and to usually be fairly - not unanimously - positively received. Then everyone umms and ahhs for a bit, the thread is archived, and nothing is decided.

So how about we try and put it to bed, one way or the other?

Summary of arguments from past discussions

For:

Can watchlist individual cases.
When we have a lot of cases/when some cases have gone on for a long time, the main page is big enough to be a problem for users with slow connections.
A single big, busy page means a lot of edit conflicts.

Against:

Can only watch cases individually (although watching the main DRN page will notify you when new cases are added). Some people feel this could stop volunteers weighing in on in-progress cases.
Would need the DRN restructuring - note: The Earwig not only supports the change but has already written the necessary code for the bot. Other changes would also be needed, but apparently the changes to the bot were easy, so I imagine the rest wouldn't be too hard either.

Arguments along the lines of "if it ain't broke..." were also put forward. However, since those dicussions, participants have complained.

That's essentially it as far as I can see. Feel free to add to the list. The watchlisting arguments - both for and against - are by far the most prevalent. A lot of people tended to take the view that subpages would be easier for participants, single page easier for volunteers. That said, some volunteers said they would find it easier with subpages. CarrieVS (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I support it:

The necessary restructuring is unlikely to be difficult enough to be a problem.

As a volunteer, I would find it easier to follow cases with subpages. Personally, I find watchlisting the whole page not to be very effective for keeping track: edit summaries on discussion-type pages are often uninformative or absent, people make half a dozen edits but the last five are just small changes to the first, and it's hard to follow any one case that you're interested in. It's often easier to just scroll down the page checking for updates on each section.

You can watch any case you're taking an active interest in, watching the main page will keep you abreast of new cases, and the case status table gives an overview of how they are all progressing - in my view better than the page history/watchlisting. Isn't the whole point of the pink "needassist" status that volunteers don't need to be following a case closely to see when input is needed? Finally, if you spend enough time on DRN anyway to want to closely follow every case, it's surely not too much trouble to watch each one? it's not as though we get that many new every day. CarrieVS (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Support - Makes it easier to follow the discussions especially when you can view the history of 'just' that case to see editing order and if changes have been made as opposed to scanning the whole DRN page history. CarrieVS also raises a number of good points which I support. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Speaking as a participant and not a volunteer here at DRN, a separate page for each discussion would be great. -- Whpq (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose With all respect, I feel that ease of scrolling down the page with a number of cases on the same page makes it easier to glance at the individual cases. I understand this is a problem for people with slower connections, but the benefits of quickly looking at cases easily outweighs this inability to do so for separate pages.Curb Chain (talk) 06:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have always presumed that while each case will have it's own page it'll still be transcluded onto the DRN home page. This means it's still possible to glance at the cases and have all the benefits of individual pages listed above. Does this make you reconsider your oppose vote? Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  - That's how I understood it too. I would oppose it if the subpages were only linked but I don't think anyone has suggested that. CarrieVS (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Sure, I'll support this. I would like to implement at the same time the rotating DRN co-ordinator role, and the updated layout for the volunteers page (Teahouse hosts style). Let's implement these changes at 00:00 UTC June 1, so we can measure the effects of the results. (If there's no objections, I'd like to be the co-ordinator for June, with the role rotating monthly to other volunteers). Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 12:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Support It would be better if most if not all of our noticeboards worked that way. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Support - for most of the reasons outlined already. The main page should of course still list the status of all subpage discussion so volunteers can keep track, and weigh in on stalled debates where required. - Nbound (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Implementing

Discussion has been a bit slow as of late, but it seems there is a consensus for making this change. I'm going to start the required work to get this to function properly, and we can have it implemented for a few days before June 1 to ensure that any bugs are ironed out. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 23:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Dealing with manually filed and reopened and similar nonstandard cases

Earwig, could you give us a bit of a tutorial about how to deal with:

manually-filed cases, i.e. cases that aren't filed via the listing form, and
cases which are closed and then reopened

without breaking the bot or the status listing? (And you might take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#A_Momentary_Lapse_of_Reason which was manually listed, then closed, then reopened. It has the header info and a case ID, but who knows if any of it is right?) BTW, if the best way to deal with manually-filed cases is to just delete them and refile them via the listing form, how can a volunteer do that without ending up as the case creator in the status template? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think filing manually does break the bot or status listing, as long as the correct templates (DR case status and drn filing editor) are put in:

As soon as I added the case status, the bot updated the case with an ID number as it would for a normally-filed case. So that's clearly not a problem.

I also added the 'filed by' template with the correct* time and filing editor. At the next update, the case status showed the right name and time*, and subsequently updated normally.

(*The discrepancy between creation time and last modified time is my fault: I used the time from the edit history but forgot to adjust for time zones. I'll fix that).

The confusion only arose when an inexperienced volunteer deleted the case ID when closing it and the bot added a new one (the original ID was 708, it's currently 709, and whichever we leave it as, there'll be a gap in the numbers but no duplicates).

The closing editor also deleted the 'filed by' template, and at the next update the status table reflected this (it was correct at the previous one).

However, since then the 'filed by' was restored with the same name and time, and there's doesn't appear to be anything wrong with it, but the case status table still lacks a creating editor and has the wrong creation time, though it is updating the 'x hours ago'.

So I think it's just coincidence that the case was manually filed, and it's deleting the templates when closing that is the problem. CarrieVS (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That said, I think it would be useful to have some instructions somewhere for manually filing, though it can all be worked out by looking at the code of other cases. Also perhaps a note on the volunteering page that 'delete the previous comment when closing...' refers only to the do not archive comment and not the templates above? CarrieVS (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

CarrieVS looks spot-on here with regards to the bot's behavior. I'm not sure what to say regarding the one problem mentioned with the chart, but I won't be able to look into that for at least a while, and it doesn't seem particularly urgent. — Earwig ^talk 20:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

So the minimum needed to get the bot to work right is a separate section with the case status template, then all else will be updated by the bot as it is added in? Does the bot add the "do not archive until" comment, or must that be added manually? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

That's right; the bot looks for all level-two sections with {{DR case status}} in them, and reads comments within that section. It doesn't add the "do not archive until" comment, nor does it care if it's present (archiving is handled by another bot), but it will remove it when cases are closed. — Earwig ^talk 21:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I've drafted some instructions in my sandbox, with code to copy and edit, for manually filing. If correctly filled out, this produces everything that filing normally does. Do you think this or something like it would be helpful? Feel free to make improvements. It occurs to me that it also might be possible to make a template; I'll look into it and we can decide which would be easier. CarrieVS (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Turns out there is a template. It doesn't produce exactly the same thing as filing via the form (here's one I made earlier), but all the right information is there and the necessary templates etc (though the do not archive until is a month away rather than two weeks). CarrieVS (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Bug?

The "Request dispute resolution" button takes me to the protected, empty page Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request. Is it supposed to trigger a script? How can I raise a ticket manually? (Perhaps that could be written up for the benefit of other affected editors also?). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It should take you to a form with instructions. It worked when I tried it a moment ago. Try it again, and if it's still not working for you, it is possible to do it manually.

If you can't get it working, then copy the source of an existing filing and change all the details. The important bits are the page(s) of the dispute, the list of editors involved, and your overview of the dispute. Anything else, a volunteer can add/fix if need be. CarrieVS (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope; I had already tried multiple times and have done so again, to no avail. I have now done as you suggested and manually created an entry. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it works for some and not for others. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Testing to see if this form works: Please ignore. Could you try it while logged out (just to see if the form is still blank; please do not hit save) and report your results? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

To my surprise, it worked after I logged out. I logged back in, and it failed again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The usual way to troubleshoot this sort of problem is to create a new throwaway account (pick a name like [your user name]testaccount just to make sure nobody suspects sockpuppeting). It will, of course, work (if new accounts couldn't use DRN we would be swamped with complaints). Then slowly change one thing at a time, making it more and more like your main account. Somewhere along the line it will stop working, and there is your problem. Once you know that, don't just make a change that fixes it for you; instead report back here and I will talk to the right people to see to it that it works for everybody.

I know that this is an annoying bother, but your help in finding bugs is really appreciated. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:The Flashman Papers

I'm having some issues with editors here, and would appreciate some outside input. The tone by certain editors has turned sarcastic, patronising and condescending, and there are some accusations of bad faith levelled at me. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

For issues with editors, WP:ANI is the place to go if you feel some intervention is necessary.

If you want help to resolve a content dispute, you can file a DRN request (using the button in the header of the main DRN page), but it must be about content only. We can't help with conduct issues here. We also can't help with things that are being discussed on other noticeboards, which would include the FLRC discussion if the dispute is related to any of the points raised there.

Finally, if I might offer some general advice, it's to remember to always assume good faith yourself, and also that editors have pride. It's surely understandable, even though it's not ideal behaviour, for people who have worked to get something to featured status to be a little touchy when someone new suddenly wants to change a lot of stuff, especially if they then call for featured status to be removed. Even if someone responds brusquely to you, replying in a similar tone will only escalate the situation where being calm and friendly (even if you don't really feel calm or friendly!) would defuse it. CarrieVS (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Flow

In case anyone isn't aware of this already, Wikipedia:Flow is software that is planned to replace our current way of editing talk pages. I would encourage you all to take a look and possibly comment on the project. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Need assistance with possible edit war on Malcolm X article. (25/05 now an edit war)

G'day. First up I don't particularly want to tread on any toes. As a volunteer here I am unsure how to proceed with an article I am encountering significant resistance with improving. I discovered the article had many instances of people questioning neutrality and felt this can best be dealt with by adding citations where applicable, etc, etc, the usual routes. So I explained myself as verbosely as I possibly could, including several statements explaining my background and complete detachment from the issue from a political stand point (I'm an Aussie, we don't really get the whole racial tensions in the US thing, and as a long time Wikipedian I could probably edit an article on my mother with neutrality bordering on apathy seen only in Futurama (bonus internet points if you get that reference)).

However, I returned the next day to find a very disappointing response. You know that irritating moment you see that rather than actually move an article forward editors dig their heels in, claim there's nothing wrong with the article, then ask you to [explain all the citation requests]? Yeah. That. So it's 3 vs 1, I feel there are many questionable statements made in the lede without adequate sourcing within the body, a strange positing of political ideology that makes up a primary tenet of his notability (in contrast to say the MLK article, or other historic figures from this era), and questionable statements in the body without citation that not only could be challenged but should for clarity and improvement.

At present it appears the critics of my edits not only wish the article to stay as it was indefinitely, whilst one has messaged me and asked to discuss the matter on the talk page (which is what I initially requested to avoid edit warring) others have taken to blanket reverts. Anyway, this could turn into a tl;dr too easily, I feel the case is quite thoroughly explained by the wall of text exchanges we've made on the article talk page and would like to have some assistance in proceeding.

What I would like, specifically, is to proceed with the article improvement, adding of citations where editors who are learned on the issue can provide them (which a couple have stated they can, including some who blanket reverted rather than attempting to provide said clarification), and generally dislodge the protesting heels that want the page to stay the same. I have used the generic arguments explaining Wikipedia is a growing thing, evolving, and hopefully becoming stronger for it, etc, etc. So only time will tell if that is enough to get some discussion and hopefully addition of sources rather than "No, leave it alone!" but at the same time I can see it's a highly political and sensitive topic for people into that sort of stuff, especially political history buffs, and I can see he would be considered a cult figure or leader figure to many demographics and thus they may feel they are 'protecting his memory' somehow by leaving the article as it is, but there have just been too many requests for citations, clarity, etc, even NPOV requests that have been ignored, not followed up, or more troublesome have been buried in talk page archiving (a gnarly tactic used to fight off change or prickly issues, although I am AGF and guessing it's coincidental, as on all politically sensitive pages :P) but yeah.

I have assisted with 3O, DRN, etc so many times, yet I am ashamed to admit I have buckleys of a clue how or even if I can request DRN intervention personally. I have reverted the page pre-blanket reverts and explained why in my talk update. I am also worried if DRN can't help and it goes to the admin noticeboard that a b&hammer happy admin may end up banning Malik (one of the reverters who reverted an NPOV tag which most admins get cranky at because the NPOV tag CLEARLY states don't fuck with it) and having experience arbitrary banning over miscommunication in the past and the several years it can take (a noted phenomenon, with support groups and all! :P) to get traction of appeal, all because I had to open my stupid mouth and say hey, this bio looks nothing like other bios I've seen and I'd kind of like to bring it up to speed. :/ HALP? BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that although Malik did revert an NPOV tag, it was one (s)he'd added one minute before and had clearly just changed his mind about adding. It was a different editor who reverted the one you added. CarrieVS (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page and history, I don't think it's simply a case of one side wanting improvements and the other refusing to change anything: most of the cn tags reverted were in the lead section, which makes it less clear cut than 'anything that's been challenged needs to be sourced', or had some other specific reason given why a citation would be, in the reverter's opinion, superfluous. I don't think there's any reason why 3O or DRN are out of the question; if you're not getting anywhere on the talk page, give one of them a try (though it's only been a day since you started discussing it, so perhaps it's worth trying a little longer). CarrieVS (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't pick up that you weren't sure how to start a DRN case. You can open a case despite being a volunteer - though the bot will still recognise you as one; you might want to consider temporarily removing your name from the list if you do open a case. CarrieVS (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The NPOV tag has been removed again, and blanket reverts have gone into effect. I'm not going to progress further as it is quite clear that an edit war will be the only response (historically the article has dealt with any attempt at change from it's current state with edit warring), I have however again reiterated the reasoning for my edits and explained that the citation request has been used per policy (ie: I'm not requesting citation requests on anything but integral statements that affect who/what/where/how/why's of the facts and integral elements that identify the life changing and biographical elements of the article that are most definitely not gone into further detail in the body, as per the citation request templates instructions), I can't do more to set their mind at ease.

The problem lies in the fact that there appears to be a reception towards change as being hostile. I believe this may be due to the amount of vandals, or detractors / POV pushers that may have a history of messing with the article, but when it begins to impact article quality and stagnate things (living off a past glory of once being a featured article in their defense that 'it ain't broke') it becomes quite counter productive. This is evident in the fact blanket reverts are being used with no single citation request, or request for clarification (ie: who, what, etc) remain, not even the NPOV tag which clearly states it is NOT to be removed, especially after I pointed out that now it is a formal dispute it really should be left alone, but as I said before who knows maybe they ACCIDENTALLY removed it, three times. If an individual citation request is in contention, it is to be raised by the person who feels it does not apply, otherwise the statement can be bolstered with a citation, or removed. It's not a case where a blanket revert is at all appropriate, nor where someone requesting sources has to defend every single source request in detail on the talk page as has been asked of me when the template is being used in accordance with it's purpose. To take this road would drag Wiki to a grinding halt and have a chilling effect where people are scared to edit in case of backlash. And to be brutally honest, I am really, really feeling that right now. Never in all my years have I had to 3O or DRN an article. Ever. I've never encountered this much resistance to a mere attempt to get more citations, especially by people who admittedly have access to source material, profess a deep understanding of the subject matter, and could provide these citations but instead opt to heel drag.

Cullen has raised the point that he has other editors siding with him. This is correct. Editors who have it on their watch list, have a history editing it, and in one case uses Malcolm X's birth name as his Wikipedia name; thus I question their ability to be neutral, or objective, especially if alarmist responses, blanket reverts, and general demands I explain every single citation request added (when they were all applied to main statements, not superfluous errata or what not) as the history of past attempts to clean the article up have shown.

It has also been contended that because I do not know the subject matter adequately, I clearly do not know how to Wiki. I'd kind of hope considering my first account here was one of the first few thousand accounts made that I have some semblence of how to request citations! But hey, I may very well be wrong, things may have changed, I may have had a stroke in my sleep and be completely batshit insane in my request that challengeable statements have supporting citations, especially ones that have a hot political element to them that detractors or generic douchebags could find as motivation for general misbehaviour and ... well, douchebaggery. I've pointed out that it's better it be challenged by a neutral third party than by someone who wants to cause grief, but they do not seem to see it this way.

Sorry this is so verbose, but I cut my first comment short and feel in not explaining the case fully and hoping that the talk page discussion would be read (which is horribly verbose, so my apologies to any volunteer who takes it on! D:< I should know better than to be THAT guy! :P) and may have detracted from my argument on those grounds. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I thought you were in the wrong or the other editors' responses were right, or anything similar. All I meant was (and from reading the talk page it was my honest impression) I didn't think it's as clear cut as some of your arguments (here and on the talk page) seemed to me to suggest. As far as I can see the others have a point - I'm not saying they're right, just that they're not obviously and irrefutably 100% in the wrong - about at least some of it. It also takes two sides to edit-war, and I see one editor has given an explanation for removal of the NPOV tag.

However, enough about my perception of the dispute. This isn't the place. If you feel discussion isn't getting anywhere, you'd best try something else. You are by the sound of it at least as familiar with dispute resolution as me, but as I said before, I don't see any obvious reason why DRN would be inappropriate unless you feel it can't be resolved without addressing conduct issues, in which case I'd suggest ANI. There's also NPOVN or RFC, if you feel either of those is a better option. CarrieVS (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

RM concerning article title of "Sabine Pass Light"

This talk page is for discussing improvements to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard page, not for discussing specific disputes.

There is an issue at Talk:Sabine Pass Light#Requested move. The issue arose because of a revert from a move I performed (that ended up being improper) to Sabine Pass Lighthouse. An editor started a RM and now what started as a simple RM became a debate as to if a naming convention needs to move all articles or if all are correct as named. I was concerned with "one" article I was expanding and the use of the local, historical, and referenced common name, that has remained unchanged for 156 years . From that the discussion has grown to "if" all other article names should be changed, because if this one does they all do, for consistency. A naming convention problem appears to be just that, and for that talk page, except there is no discussion there. I understand seeking consistency, but I have provided reference after reference, in support of the more common name according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and this apparently is being dismissed as not relevant. I do not want this to stall because of some bureaucracy. I feel I have supplied more than enough evidence (and have more) to warrant a correct name change on this article, as well as suggestions concerning the naming dilemma, but this has thus far gone unanswered.

I just need someone to take a look with some advice of future proceedings. Otr500 (talk) 11:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It appears that after you left the foregoing message the requested move has concluded with a consensus to leave the article named as it is. That should conclude that issue. Remember that due to this section of the consensus policy that naming (or other) conventions cannot be decided at individual articles or at wikiprojects, but only though policymaking in the way described in the Policy policy (not a typo). As for your request here, please be aware that to make a request for help you must use the "Request dispute resolution" button at the top of the main page of the project; requests made on this page will not suffice. Since consensus has been reached in regard to the requested move, however, a filing here on that matter will almost certainly be closed without response. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I feel the decision was made so outside help could not be brought in so I will have to see how to contest this. Otr500 (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"On The Next Matchday" Blurbs

This talk page is for discussing improvements to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard page, not for discussing specific disputes.

User:Dr. Vicodine has been removing clinching scenarios from 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Fourth Round and has been reverted back several times by several other editors (myself included), some of whom have expressed disapproval in their edit summaries. I looked at his talk page and saw that he is using the dispute resolution of the 2012–13 UEFA Champions League group stage (resolved against the inclusion of such material) as to why. I would like to ask whether this resolution against inclusion applies to all such blurbs for all similar articles (i.e., all confederations' qualification processes). Please don't get me wrong - if this is the case, I'll help remove them as well (though I feel including a statement in the talk pages pointing to it would be a good idea, as it certainly seems others do not know about this resolution). 199.20.68.40 (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The only time anything decided at Wikipedia applies as a rule to all similar articles is when it is made a rule — that is, made a policy or guideline — via the procedures described in the Policy policy (not a typo), see WP:CONLIMITED. That did not happen in the prior dispute resolution case. However, if we're talking about exactly the same situation in other cases, then the opinions setting out analysis of the existing rules and guidelines which were given in the prior case ought to apply to those other cases as well, but they're nothing more than that: opinions. This forum does not make binding judgments, all we do is to help people negotiate their disagreements and give neutral opinions about how we feel the rules apply to those disagreements. If an editor is using our opinions, he or she cannot be doing anything more than, in effect, saying, "The volunteers at DRN believed the rules say such-and-such in regard to this situation." That assertion may be wrong either because (a) the facts are different in the case to which it is now being applied or because (b) we here were wrong in the first place — or it may be dead spot-on right. If you get into a discussion over that, or any other matter, which stalls out, feel free to file a new case here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Very well. For the time being I've just added a note in the talk page for the parent article. Hopefully some of the other editors will notice and a civil discussion can get started. 199.20.68.40 (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It could be limitated but after this we can close all the discussion about if next matchday scenarios are or are not a OR. Stigni (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)