Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 23

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 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

RfC: Should volunteers moderating a dispute be bound by the instruction to "Comment only on the content not the contributor"

There is clearly no consensus for this RfC proposal. As a party who was had no involvement with the article in question, no involvement at the DRN case under discussion or in this RfC, I am closing this RfC per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Keithbob • Talk • 16:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Should volunteers moderating a dispute be bound by the instruction to "Comment only on the content not the contributor" - and specifically, should they be instructed not to imply or assert that participants (whether specifically named or not) have violated Wikipedia policy elsewhere? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Support as proposer. This noticeboard is intended specifically to resolve content disputes, and to facilitate this, it is made entirely clear to participants that comments about behaviour are inappropriate, and may be redacted. Volunteers - who have no mandated authority beyond any other participant in the discussion -should likewise be expected to avoid making comments about contributor behaviour (beyond any specific instructions clearly necessary for the direct resolution of the discussion), for the same reasons, and because comments made by a volunteer in a context where a contributor cannot reasonably respond without dragging the thread further off topic can only encourage discord and make resolution less likely. I can see no legitimate reason why a volunteer should not be expected to maintain the same standards of behaviour expected of others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Object to non-neutral wording of RfC question. Clearly AndyTheGrump is looking for new and innovative ways to attack me, and I have no intention of participating in this latest attempt, nor do I intend to read anything further posted in this thread. We have a place to complain about user behavior, and that place is WP:ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, we have a place to complain about behaviour - which is why I am suggesting that DRN discussions aren't the appropriate place for DRN volunteers to do so. And would you care to suggest how the question could have been worded differently? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: I don’t see a problem with the wording of the question. It seems perfectly valid to me, regardless of any personal history between you two. That said, might I suggest this RFC be closed per WP:SNOW? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose, utterly. While it is ordinarily not a good idea, commenting on user conduct can sometimes be needed in order to maintain order during a mediation and in situations in which the question falls into a grey area between that and incivility, the doubt ought to be exercised in favor of the volunteer. Moreover disputes do come here where the only correct answer is to point out that one side is unquestionably wrong and the other right at the original talk page, due to the policy as it applies at the article or the article talk page. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, though I've been working here since the beginning of this board, this has never been a substantial problem (nor, for the reasons I mentioned above, was it in this case). This question and any answer to it is an answer searching for a problem. We already have a process in place for dealing with this, discussed above, and further rules are both unnecessary and unwise. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. I've thought it over a bit, and while I don't personally agree with the way behavioural commentary was made in the e-cat situation, it seems like having such a rule in place could, in other situations, invite wikilawyering if a DRN mod happens to say something that could be construed as "negatively personal" even if the intent or meaning was not to insult anyone, and was indeed intended to help move the mediation process forward in the way TransporterMan described above. DRN mods could be brought to task over every little thing, and it would bog down the content dispute with even more complications. What's in place works well enough, and ANI is the place to go if someone's behaviour is truly out of line-- the diffs of evidence will be examined by an uninvolved and reasonable enough admin, eventually. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊_BLASTER 01:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose, leave it to the volunteers, if they're comfortable with it and, if so, how much will be tolerated. Kharkiv07 (T) 02:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose, I am new to this on Wikipedia but have had to do it unofficially on occasion and quite a bit outside of Wikipedia. However, It seems to me that in any mediation the mediator does require some freedom to focus the discussion on the topic at hand. This will on occasion require some direct pointing out that people in the group being mediated may have stopped debating or discussing the issue and have fallen into the trap of focusing on each other. Which will not get anyone anywhere. So definitely oppose the idea of overly hamstringing the mediator. Faendalimas ^talk 02:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - Proposal just isn't practical. It would cause more problems than it would solve. DreamGuy (talk) 04:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose and evoke snowball clause.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. One of the responsibilities of a DRN moderator is to make sure the actual participants focus their remarks and arguments on edits and contributions, not editors or contributors. How can moderators be expected to do that if they themselves are under that same restriction? If one of the participants gets out of line, it is the moderator's duty to point that out and steer the debate back to discussing edits, not editors. (I will agree, however, that a moderated dispute resolution should focus on the specific subject at hand, and that whether or not a participant has violated Wikipedia policy elsewhere should not be considered relevant.)
Richard27182 (talk) 05:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - This RfC, primarily to merit one's POV is generally not acceptable. Yes, indeed sometimes it might be necessary for a volunteer to make comments on conduct (related to the content dispute) to resolve the dispute successfully. A moderator's capabilities are greatly restricted in DRN and I don't want to even more suppress their power. If that happens, it'll eventually make them a mannequin. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

A question. So where do we (and the RfC) go from here now that the initiator and only real supporter (AndyTheGrump) has retired?
Richard27182 (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

See my response to the message you left on my talk page. In short, a retirement banner often doesn't mean much. However, this is indeed looking pretty snowy. We'll let it run awhile longer and if responses stop, will close it early and see if it sticks. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - Restrictive rules will interfere with the ability of this non-binding and voluntary procedure to sometimes resolve disputes. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Additional comment. I agree with TransporterMan that this proposal has very little if any chance of passing and probably won't need to run the full 30 days. The essence of the proposal would prevent DR moderators from doing an essential part of their job. But I do believe that there is some merit to the part about DR moderators (or anyone involved, for that matter) not discussing unrelated issues in the DRN discussion, specifically alleged violation of Wikipedia rules elsewhere. However I do not believe that it is necessary that the official rules be modified to indicate this. I think it's already implicit in the "job description" of a dispute moderator. And anyway as I understand it, an editor can always request that the DRN case be handled by a different moderator.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Look, part of establishing a pattern of disruption would be to mention similar issues on other articles if they are part of establishing such a pattern for the purposes of sorting out what the difficulties are of any situation. As much as some may not like it...discussing what an editor did in any situation is relevant if it is establishing a pattern of some kind, even if it is not a behavioral issue it may be a problem with sources, original research, or other content related problems. It is actually a good idea if every editor involved in a dispute is looked at. Their talk page, their history, their history on the article in question as well as the talk page and any related articles or editor talk pages. Yes, it is daunting and you will sometimes make mistakes and you will sometimes be accused of being nearly the devil himself. It is less than thankless...it is like being spat on while trying to pull someone up off the ground. The person that began this refused to participate in the DRN and has decided to leave the project entirely. Obviously they felt the exact same way. I am going to take the bold action of closing this RFC with the snowball clause. This has gone on long enough. As far as I can see...nothing is broken and there is nothing to fix. I also believe that the RFC was clearly began to prove a point.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

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

I was waiting a while before closing to give anyone who wanted a chance to object but this works.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

On 0919/2015 I posted a one line reference to an external heading re the subject matter of synchronicities. Today in checking I see that it was removed and a message said my reference was reverted.

Before my attempted addition to external references the entries read as followed:

EXTERNAL LINKS

. IgorV.Limar (2011). "Carl G.Jung's Synchronicity and Quantum

 Entanglement......

. Carl Jung and Synchronicity

I attempted to insert he following reference which appeared under Carl Jung and Synchronicity

The content of my reference was: TOWARDS A SCIENCE of SYNCHRONICITIES: THEIR MEANING and THERAPEUTIC IMPLICATIONBS

I followed the guidelines. Additionally I have investigated these odd phenomena for fifty years. I have written a book on this subject

called: DEMYSTIFYING MEANINGFUL COINCIDENCES (SYNCHRONICITIES): The Evolving Self, The Personal Unconscious, and The Creative Process.

see Amazon - Rowman and Littlefield Publishers New York, 2010 IBSN: 978-0-7657 -0702n -4

My web site is gibbsonline.com I am a psychoanalyst in private practice in New York City for the last 46 years. I have a Ph.D and a recognized expert in the field of synchronicities.

The person(s) who reverted my entry has the name: THE RINGLESS (en.wikipedia org/wiki/user: The Ringless [The Ringing World)

I believe this reversion is absolutely inappropriate and should be re reverted.

Thank you for your attention Gibbsonline (talk · contribs) 20:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gibbsonline basically first up this is not really the right place to deal with this. This page is for dispute mediation over much larger issues. I will leave it to @TransporterMan: to decide to maybe move your request and my reply to your talk page. I am happy to explain all this to you. Ok I looked at your edit the page you linked to etc. You have added a link to your own site which has I what I believe is an essay on this topic by yourself. Correct me if I am wrong. What this means is you are adding Original Research to a page, Wikipedia has a policy on this WP:OR please click the link and have a read. From what I can tell what you have linked to is unpublished. I am a professional scientist I have many papers, a number of which are used as references on Wikipedia. I have to be extremely careful if I edit those pages, I must be open about my Conflict of Interest (COI) and I must demonstrate a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and I certainly cannot be adding my own papers for the simple opportunity to advertise myself. So I do understand your position. Wikipedia has rules about all of this. Further to this you added your link into the further reading with no real explanation as to why, which makes it appear, even if it was not, as advertising. Any patroller will have no option that to play it safe and revert that edit. My suggestion to you is to engage other editors of that page on the pages Talk Page and discuss what you would like to do. Then everyone will understand what your trying to do and there wont be any confusion about it. I would recommend to you that if you are going to suggest your own work in discussions I would limit it to material that has been published appropriately. Feel free to ask me more on my talk page, and lastly make sure you sign your posts ~~~~ at the end of your post will timestamp it and place your name on it. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 21:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me just supplement what Faendalimas said above to note that the link in question potentially violates a number of different sections of the "links to be avoided" section of the External Links policy, most particularly #11. But the bigger issue is that here at Wikipedia when there's a disagreement between editors there is no board or authority who has the right to decide who is right and who is wrong. Such disagreements are decided by consensus of the community, which is worked out beginning through discussion between the involved editors on the article talk page. We have a process called bold, revert, discuss; you've done the first two steps of that process, so it's time to move on to discussion. Even if you had made a proper request here at DRN (we don't accept requests coming through this talk page), it would have been declined for the lack of extensive discussion about the dispute on the article talk page. So start a discussion there and see what the other editor has to say. If you cannot come to an agreement after extensive discussion, then you can seek dispute resolution here or at some other DR forum. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Notification by Link in Duma Arson

In a current new case, Duma arson, the filing party has provided links to the DRN case as the notice of DRN filing. I think that is adequate notice to the other editors, but would appreciate comments. (As to the general status of the case, the next step appears to be waiting for statements from the other editors.) It won't be an easy case. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I concur on all counts. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

On difficulty, ouch I guess. I have found it difficult to track which articles are being referred to at times in that page particularly since it's being actively edited. Personally I would like to figure out which is the original article they are referencing. Maybe see it and be sure its the right one. I was unclear from their discussions on this also. It seems very political. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 22:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Would it be "mean"/unreasonable to impose a WP:Diff-required rule on this case? I.e. if they are referring to a change, they have to provide a diff to the change or the comment is disregarded? Just a thought, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

...Combined, of course, with a friendly offer to help anyone who hasn't figured out how to generate diffs. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the need to make a Diff rule mandatory in any DRN case. The value of providing diffs should be explained, especially when the issue is changes to the article. I agree that it is difficult to figure out what is being discussed, because the article keeps changing, but that is why I think that we need to wait for summary statements. I think that diffs are extremely useful, but should not be required, just strongly encouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

It is reasonable to make such a requirement if the mediator feels it is justifiable (as long as helping those unfamiliar with Diffs). Mediators may make such requirements a part of the DRN. I have no opinion one way or the other whether it should be used in this case, but it has been an almost unwritten rule on Wikipedia on most notice boards to always provide diffs when referring to any action involving editing. It wouldn't be a huge leap to just make it a requirement on occasion.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"A requirement on occasion" is all I was suggesting, not to make diffs a required thing for every case. I would not suggest using it to hinder new or inexperienced editors, though I should have thought about that when I made the suggestion (my bad), but I'm happy to help if they need any. Only considered the idea since JustBerry included the line "precise locations of the dispute" and took it to mean diffs, and read above that the article was "difficult to track ... since it's being actively edited" in the words of Faendalimas. Thanks, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Something else I've noticed about this case is that a lot of the parties (Settleman, Nishidani, Huldra, and Pluto at a cursory glance, though the others may be too) are currently involved in an ANI behavioral dispute about multiple articles in the same ARBPIA-covered topic area. A DRN case may very well be necessary to resolve the content dispute at hand, but should it wait until the ANI dispute is archived/closed due to the clear topic overlap? ᴅʀᴀᴄᴏʟyᴄʜ - ✉✎ 09:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Whether the ANI dispute should prevent taking this case at DRN sounds like a question for our coordinator, User:TransporterMan. My own opinion is that, since the conduct dispute doesn't involve the article in question, it isn't a case of having the same dispute in two forums, and that taking up the content dispute about the arson article could be a way to reduce the hostility, but that is only my opinion. It looks as though that ANI case has been open for at least a week and does not appear close to resolution. (My own opinion is that taking a conduct dispute in an area subject to discretionary sanctions to ANI is a formula for rehashing existing dislikes rather than for resolving issues, and that conduct disputes in those areas should go to arbitration enforcement instead, but that is only my opinion.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Drcrazy102 It's not really about the diffs right now; I'm sure volunteers are capable of searching through page history. Besides, it would be an inadvertent referral to other editors, so probably not best to ask for diffs until necessary. However, let me give you specific examples of the lack of clarity in the filer's description. For example, "A reliable source" leads to the question "Which source?" in the mind of a volunteer. Quite honestly, the editors appear to have a heated discussion and are unable to articulate the precise claims and why they're "wrong"; rather, they appear to me making generalizations about each others claims. --JustBerry (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

If they are making generalizations about the claims of other editors, they need to be told to comment on content, not on contributors. Making that reminder is part of the job of the moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: This has already been done via hats. --JustBerry (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Two points:

Closing cases due to pending ANI processes has never been done uniformly here, some people think it's a good idea, others do not. I evaluate it case by case. In this case I'd say not to close, but I strongly suspect that this case will not go forward because we aren't going to get enough disputants weighing in to make a resolution feasible.

Comment: @TransporterMan: From my search, it does not appear that this exact issue has been dealt with in the past. However, it does seem like ArbCom/ANI cases have dealt with relatively similar cases recently, a handful of which involve the same group of editors currently listed in the case. --JustBerry (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not to require diffs is up to the individual editor who takes the case. If the case is so unclear or complex it's daunting for any volunteer to take it, any editor may suggest that diffs be added to encourage a volunteer to take the case.

Comment: @TransporterMan: Looks like diffs seem to be a pathway for personalized comments for this case specifically. Reminding the involved editors to include specifics is sufficient enough for now. To help simplify the situation, short volunteer summaries might be helpful either on the case or here on the talk. Also, anyone currently involved here can and probably should weigh in if possible. --JustBerry (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 05:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Evangelos Zappas

Sympathies to any volunteer moderator. This is a case involving nationality in the Balkan region, and these cases can be contentious. Our objective is of course to resolve the case amicably, but sometimes third opinion or DRN is the next-to-last step before the matter goes to Arbitration Enforcement. If you accept the case, be aware, and be patient but not too patient. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems too early for that at the moment. Not enough discussion on the talk page. Also, it may be best in the closing to suggest third opinion as the next best step since there are only two parties involved.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

If there are only two editors involved in a dispute, but it is contentious, and there has been adequate talk page discussion, it is reasonable, in my opinion, to skip third opinion and come here in order to get moderated discussion rather than simply a third opinion. The real issue is whether there has been enough discussion on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

That is the point actually. But, if we are closing over a lack of discussion (and as a contentious dispute we should require much more discussion) then we should be prepared to give a reasonable alternative for this point in time. Third opinion is best as it might help to continue the discussion, but if this relates directly to an issue covered by a notice board such as WP:RSN, that could be the suggestion as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it just me or is it too harsh sometimes to point out that there is a relationship between the level of contention in an hypothesis and the amount of evidence required to have it accepted. The Balkan's have been a hotspot for a long time, lots of nationalistic pride. I would be fearful of my lack of experience to accept this one myself, but I would be very interested to observe. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 20:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

What is the question? I am not sure that I understand the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it over the top to point out to both editors that in order to change something that is going to be very contentious a considerable amount of good quality reference material is going to be needed and in the absence of it its better to stay as the page was until that is available. That a conservative approach is better in some situations. Õr is that beyond our function here. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 22:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Should this discussion perhaps be moved to WP:RSN? The dispute seems based around the reliability, or not, of the the sources. If the sources are verified as being reliable by Wiki standards, would that not help in mediating/concluding the dispute since the content dispute is based on the fundamental argument of whether the sources are reliable or not?

Also, should we point to WP:PROVEIT? Again per the RS argument, but also the issue of possible fringe theory raised by UmpireEmpire in both discussions, as Rolandi seems to think the onus is on others to disprove that the 'Aromanian origin' is not a fringe theory? (Shown here)

There were two other users, Alexikoua and Zoupan, who were involved in the talk page discussion. Should they also be invited? Just curious, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 05:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Block Log Comment

In the Duma arson case comments, a volunteer noted the block status of four of the parties. One of them was indefinitely blocked by Checkuser since the dispute began. Three of them have block logs. I think that the block status of two of them is irrelevant. The one who was indefinitely blocked by Checkuser is presumably a sockpuppet for a banned or blocked user. I would suggest striking the listing of that editor as a party. One of them was blocked for 48 hours in September 2015. Two of them have long block logs, one most recently in 2013 and one most recently in 2011. An editor who was blocked in the past but not in the past two years is, in my opinion, an editor who has learned, or possibly grown up. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) With respect where it is due, I thought it was a little curious to be bringing up block logs as well. I know we just had a considerable discussion above about how a mediator commenting on the conduct of disputants can be conducive to focusing the discussion, but I don't know if just mentioning they have a block log was helpful in this case. Especially since several of the parties' blocks were years ago and for unrelated matters, it seems to assume much about the disputants' present behavior before most have even come to the table to give their summary and start the DRN talks. Their behavior during the DRN case is all that's supposed to matter here, isn't it? ᴅʀᴀᴄᴏʟyᴄʜ - ✉✎ 16:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

If the blocks are for edit-warring, then our job is to help them avoid edit-warring by moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I struck the listing of the indef-blocked editor. As for the editors who have been previously blocked for edit-warring, moderated discussion is sometimes the best way to avoid future edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon and Dracolych:

Indef-blocked editor remark remains with name listing and editor summary section stuck. Block log discussion removed as per moderated discussion philosophy. Please use ping in the future. --JustBerry (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Remarks?

When did we start looking at the block logs/edit warring history of participants before opening a case? In both the current cases, JustBerry acutely pointed out that the participant(s) had a history of edit warring/block log. As far as I know, we make comments on conducts rarely, but pointing to conduct at the start of the case is somewhat embarrassing and not what editors expect in DRN. And it is totally unnecessary. We resolve the dispute based on the content and not based on the edit warring history.. And for the second dispute, it should've been closed as not enough extensive discussion. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 04:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussing block logs or other behavior is ordinarily inappropriate, since we don't deal with conduct. I won't say "never" but I will say "not routinely" and "not ordinarily" and that's particularly true prior to case acceptance by a volunteer, except perhaps to stop incivility occurring on the DRN page prior to acceptance and, even then, discussing block logs would not ordinarily be beneficial. We judge edits not editors. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 05:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I concur. I think we take participants at face value when they arrive here. Part of the reason we can be impartial is that we don't know the background of a dispute or its participants. This allows us to observe and moderate with no predisposition. Researching their past (even recent) editing history/blocks etc. creates a prejudicial situation for the moderator and this venue. Bringing up a participants conduct here on the DRN talk page seems doubly inappropriate and could even be seen by the editor under scrutiny and/or other editors as malicious.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Block History (more)

Here are my own thoughts on checking the block history of editors, and I would like to know if anyone agrees or disagrees. First, there is nothing wrong with a volunteer privately checking the block history of an editor. The real issue is whether to say anything about it on the project page or this project talk page. Second, it is reasonable to mention if an editor has been indefinitely blocked. If there are only two editors, the case is moot. If there are multiple editors, the blocked editor can be ignored. Third, it is reasonable to mention if one or more editors are currently blocked, which sometimes happens for the edit-warring whose resolution is being sought here, but only in the context that discussion can resume when the editors come off block. Fourth, if an editor has a block log that is recent, a volunteer may reasonably take that into account in deciding whether to take a case or leave it for another editor. Fifth, if an editor has been blocked in the past, but not within the past year or so, they are likely to be an editor who has learned and improved. Those are my thoughts. The real issue is whether to mention the history here, and my answer is, only if it affects their ability to take part in collaborative dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Assessing the logs of a participant is not a problem per se. But, there is a possibility of being biased when a volunteer goes through the history and pre-determines the behavior of an involved editor. Ofcourse I'm not talking about ongoing blocks/edit warring, which can affect the proceedings of a case. A volunteer should avoid doing so, if he thinks that looking at the history might probably make him non-neutral. Checking the logs or not, any moderator should avoid making comments on involved party's history (specifically before the case is opened) unless it becomes impossible to proceed further without making that particular comment. Editors come to DRN for peaceful resolution of the dispute and we need not welcome them with a warm block log history. But at the end of the day, there is nothing much we can do about a Volunteer taking a look at the history. It's publicly available and it's his right to look at the history. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah the classic |Catch-22 conundrum. Personally I don't look at an editor's sanction history except in cases where I would have already. For example: Seeing an editor border on the edge of a personal attack without stepping over the line, seeing creative debating gambits being employed to disrupt progress to a resolution, or being disruptive in general I'll look in their talk page/block log to see if they had been previously warned about the same action that I found troubling. If I see this is their first time, I'll make a untargeted reminder of the guidelines. Only when it becomes an unsurmountable problem that the conduct is the main reason the dispute is going. In that case to maintain the neutrality I typically assert that "This is almost entirely a conduct dispute and as such will be closing this request as failed in N hours." to try and get the conduct issues to get shelved to deal with the content. (Sometimes a arm twist works best in resolving an issue). Hasteur (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@JAaron95, TransporterMan, Robert McClenon, Keithbob, and Hasteur:

As per section above... Indef-blocked editor remark remains with name listing and editor summary section stuck. Block log discussion removed as per moderated discussion philosophy. If there's a concern, please use ping in the future. --JustBerry (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

DRN Volunteer list

On my individual initiative, I have undid Wiki-impartial's addition to the DRN Volunteer list. A pointy username like this along with what appears to be trying to avoid scrutiny on actions taken from a previous account suggest to me that they would be incompatible with being a DRN volunteer. Any thoughts? Hasteur (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, no. There's no reason to create an alt account for DRN matters. The only reason an alt account would be needed for a different role on WP would be if you were a WMF employee or a Wikipedian-in-Residence for a museum, as far as I'm reading on WP:ALTACCN#Legitimate_uses. I see on the talkpage of this new account that issue was taken with how DRN cases were being handled--that being said, that was two years ago, but even so, they haven't edited at DRN at least since I started in February/March of this year, so there's no frame of reference on if they've improved or gained experience since those prior complaints. ᴅʀᴀᴄᴏʟyᴄʜ - ✉✎ 14:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Closing of Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:List_of_state_leaders_in_1947.23French_Co-prince_of_Andorra

@TransporterMan: There was significant discussion on the talk page. Why did you close the DRN case? --JustBerry (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Extensive discussion requires extensive back and forth in order for it to be a discussion. What amounts to one long comment followed by one long response isn't extensive. - TransporterMan (TALK) 12:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask, what is a general rule of thumb for "extwnsive" discussion between editors? 3+ each, 5+each? I ask since I haven't found anything giving guidance so it seems a bit "iffy" and subjective to the volunteer looking at the discussion. I understand there can't be a concrete answer, but in general? I agree that a comment and reply wouldn't count as extensive by any means but it does the raise the question. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The restriction exists to protect Wikipedia's principle that decisions are to be made through productive, collaborative talk page discussion leading to consensus. The truly proper amount of discussion is that in which each editor has responded to the other sides' position with an argument which shows that s/he has given full consideration to that position and has responded to it in a manner which takes into consideration both the good parts and bad parts of that position and those responses have continued back and forth in a collegial way until the editors regretfully discover that they have reached stalemate. Of course, if we held that as the standard we'd only accept a couple of cases a year. <Ahem.> For me, it's the amount of discussion that, once all the conduct allegations and insults have been filtered out, along with the "is not/is too"'s, shows that both sides have made at least some effort to respond to one another in a meaningful way and have made at least some real effort to talk it out. I won't say "never" but for me that at the very minimum requires two talk page statements by each editor, again disregarding conduct and "is not/is too", and if that has been weak or half-hearted maybe more than that. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:DRN/V#Closing

Something I've noticed about the guide for general close-- the {{DRN archive top|reason=foo ~~~~}} hat goes before the {{DR case status|closed}} template, meaning that the DRN case status box is contained within the hat, and I've noticed most editors reverse this so that the case status remains outside the hat, which indeed makes more sense than containing it in the hat. I suppose this isn't an issue for DRN volunteers who are used to working with the template syntax without guidance, but for consistency's sake would anyone mind if I changed it to the status-then-hat order on the volunteer guidance page? ᴅʀᴀᴄᴏʟyᴄʜ - ✉✎ 13:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure that I understand. The guidance examples put the archive template after the case status, which is what I have always seen. What is the question, or what should be done differently, or what is the proposed improvement or the problem? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Dracolych I believe I understand exactly what your are talking about. Please feel free to fix that.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Sorry for the late response. Had to take a three-day weekend away from the internet due to a nasty head cold. ᴅʀᴀᴄᴏʟyᴄʜ - ✉✎ 11:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Notice: Proposed change to WP:INVOLVED

Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Proposed change to WP:INVOLVED --Guy Macon (talk)

Closure of WikiProject Medicine Thread

I have thought about re-opening the closed thread about WT:WikiProject Medicine, but will bring it here for discussion instead. User:Dracolych closed the thread as a conduct dispute. I respectfully disagree. I was once rebuked for closing a thread as a conduct dispute because it was stated as a conduct dispute. (In the case in particular, the filing party stated that the issue was the vandalism of an article, but was yelling "Vandalism" in order to "win" a content dispute.) Just because the filing party states an issue as a conduct dispute does not mean that it does not also have content issues that can be addressed if the moderator will keep the discussion civil and focused on content rather than contributors. In this case, the filing party has stated the issue as one of conduct by QuackGuru, who is an aggressive editor who is usually but not always right, but there may be real content issues if the filing party wants to add content to Barrier cream or to create a separate article on Shielding lotion, which is currently redirected. Since the filing party is a new editor and is not necessarily familiar with the distinction between content disputes and conduct disputes, and since we will handle the content aspects of a dispute, I would suggest that the thread be reopened to ask for summaries from both parties. (Certainly, taking a conduct issue about QuackGuru to WP:ANI will never resolve anything, since they are a polarizing editor. But a particular article issue involving that editor might be able to be addressed here.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Mm, I see where you're coming from Robert and Mark. Main problem with keeping a case like that open, in my view, is how plainly it's been framed almost entirely as a conduct dispute by the filer, which I understand could come from a misconception of DRN's purpose by virtue of being new to Wikipedia. I know that all they want is a little respect for their contributions, and depending on the situation we might be able to help. However, to some degree the onus is on them to properly explain the content aspects of the dispute and reframe the scope of their case filing so it doesn't seem like their only goal is to bring QG to task-- instead to reflect what the content issue they're have between them is, so we can moderate it. I suppose we could have done some of the legwork for them and try to reframe it ourselves before, but I don't if the scope of our responsibility here extends to that.

I suppose if there's a consensus among DRN volunteers that I was being too by-the-books about this, I'll get back in touch with the filer and QG and invite them to a reopening of the case, and ask them for summaries of the dispute that approach it from a content angle... it looks like they've decided to go their separate ways on this already, if the talk thread on WPMED is any indication, so they may not be interested in pursuing it further, but I'll still try regardless if it's seen to be a better course of action than leaving it closed. I might not be able to be the primary overseer for the case, as it may be a more complex one and my time available is still in quite severe flux these days, but I'll still take care of inviting them to the table at least. ᴅʀᴀᴄᴏʟyᴄʜ - ✉✎ 11:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

In cases like this, perhaps we should consider putting something in the closing statement encouraging them to refile with just the content dispute. Also, linking to WP:DRR wnen closing a case is almost always helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It was a bit of a close call, but I would have closed it as a conduct dispute as well. On the other hand, if a volunteer had taken the case and wanted to focus only on the underlying content issues, I probably wouldn't have questioned their decision to do so. I think that the right approach is to look at the entire filing and determine whether the overall goal of the filing is directed towards conduct or to content, giving a bit of additional weight to what is specifically requested in the "How do you think we can help?" section. There are few conduct disputes which are not based at least to some degree on content disputes, but what we need to parse out is what the filing party is looking for and wanting us to do and we don't need to be engaging in speculation — not that I'm suggesting that anyone in this tread is doing this — about what the filer "really wants" or "really needs." As for Guy's suggestion about mentioning refiling without the conduct allegations: Sometimes I do that, sometimes I don't; it depends on the individual circumstances. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Would anyone oppose a notice to the filing editor, "Dr. James Schultz", to the effect of possibly having the dispute refiled but focused on content or to use one of the conduct DR services via WP:DRR? Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that it makes sense to advise him to refile focused entirely on content. I do not suggest giving him advice to use any of the conduct DR services, because, in this case, none of them will work. The Dispute Resolution Policy lists four conduct venues, as well as multiple content venues, of which this one is the most appropriate. The problem with the four conduct venues is that they are WP:SPI, WP:ANEW, WP:ANI, and Arbitration. This case didn't appear to involve edit-warring, and it definitely doesn't involve sockpuppetry. The appropriate forum would be WP:ANI if there really is a conduct issue, but ANI doesn't work with editors who are usually right but deeply polarizing, and I wouldn't advise a new editor to request arbitration. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Earth System Science

I thank User:Drcrazy102 for useful contributions. Any feedback is appreciated. It appears that I didn't satisfy anyone. Does that mean that I was in the middle or trying to get the middle and they were on opposite "sides", or what? Should I have been more patient? Should I have been less patient? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You tried, but sometimes the irresistible force meets the immovable object. I've been watching the goings-on as the article is close to my professional interests. But I didn't have the patience to get involved in what looked certain to be a protracted tussle. So while I would have approached the problem differently I wasn't the one who took the time to try and sort out the mess -- you were, and I'm not going to criticize. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Was I the immovable object, or were the editors on the two "sides" the irresistible force and the immovable object? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I meant the two sides of the dispute, sorry. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You did good Robert McClenon, the editors are just stubborn and a bit "stuck in the mud" with their positions. If neither side will allow for compromise, then it turns into a tug-of-war. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 03:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC) PS. Lowercase "c", not upper case "C" for my username

Robert, you were systematic, patient and efficient. The unmovable position by user Terradactyl to include biased info in the article is the reason for the conflict and the failure of this mediation. BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Creating a draft for the RfC mentioned in the "ESS" case

Hey DRN volunteers and talk-page stalkers. I have recently been in contact with Robert McClenon (here) about continuing the RfC discussion and have taken the initiative to host the discussion on my sandbox. I have sent out a message to the ESS talk page and the involved parties to discuss the language. Just wanted to make any interested parties aware of this and to ask for outside opinions and views on the (hopefully) emerging discussion. Message sent out read as the following:

I am creating a page on my userspace's sandbox to discuss the creation of an RfC and its wording to settle the dispute filed at the DR/N here, since there seemed to be 3 out 4 (5?) editors that agreed to using an RfC to settle the contested changes. The draft page can be found at User:Drcrazy102/sandbox/Draft_RfC_for_Earth_System_Science. Please do not comment on the RfC on this talkpage, comment on the Discussion section on the Sandbox page.

Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Remember that there are two parts to what must be published. The first is the neutral wording of the RFC question, to be posted to Talk:Earth system science, with an RFC bot tag. The second is the actual wording of the proponent's draft language. Both are important. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment on non-wheel-warring

An editor claims that other editors have been wheel-warring. I advised the editor to read the policies on what edit-warring and wheel-warring are. Moderated discussion at this noticeboard is intended as an alternative to edit-warring. Wheel-warring, as most of us here know, is a rare and serious conduct matter that is normally addressed at Requests for Arbitration. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, maybe the editor was ignorant.. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 17:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. They obviously meant edit-warring. Incorrectly describing the issues is not a reason to decline a case, but inadequate discussion is. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

List of wars involving Cyprus

Now at WP:ANI Robert McClenon (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

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

I request that another editor look at whether the off-and-on discussion qualifies for resolution here or whether it is premature. (The talk page is disorganized, and some of the sections are out of sequence, so it is a little hard to follow.) Can someone else offer a volunteer judgment as to whether this case is ready for moderation discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Just a heads up...

I just volunteered at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Electoral Commission, and if chosen I will most likely be too busy to participate at DRN until the arbcom election is over. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Can we "hire" a bot-coder to make the Clerk-Bot send out the DRN notices?

Is it possible to get a bot-coder to update the Clerk-Bot to send out DRN notices when disputes are filed? I notice that while some editors are sending out the notices, others aren't and it is annoying to DIY when we do tell them to send out the notices. I'm pinging Hasteur for their thoughts and to see if they are willing to do so/see if it is possible/ask if they know anyone that can do this for us. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Drcrazy102 Some back history (as it appears you haven't read the previous history). Previously the DRN clerk bot did that level of action however disagreements between the bot author and the DRN volunteers (in addition to frequent errors in dropping the DRN notice) caused the previous author to step away from providing service at all for the DRN board. What happens if the template is malformed? What happens if the editor who is filing the dispute doesn't fill in the other editors (or puts in the wrong names)? At what time frame should the clerk bot parse the case request (to give the filing editor appropriate leeway to correct errors)? Should the bot check to see if there is already a notice for the specific DRN request on the user's page? There's so many questions to answer that I feel that any answer beyond "DRN could but the volunteers should flesh out the requirements more to resolve uncertainty". Think about every odd edge case and what the bot should do to handle it. I would also note that in the DRN volunteer guide part of taking a case (or checking it) is to see if all listed disputants have been notified. Hasteur (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Although in theory having the bot notify the editors seems like a good idea, I agree with Hasteur that it is likely to be more trouble than it is worth, in particular because malformed requests are common and have various ways of breaking the bot. (Yes, I am aware that the bot "shouldn't" break on malformed requests, but we are relying on volunteer bot-maintainers, not professional software developers and professional software testers.) (Malformed requests for formal mediation do occasionally cause the bot to get stuck.) I don't think it is an unreasonable requirement that the filing editor identify and notify the other parties, and the only service that the bot could provide would be notifying the parties, not identifying the parties. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough then, I wasn't sure if it would be too much hassle or not or if such an idea had been discussed in the past. I should clarify at the least that I was meaning for the Clerk-bot to take over the notifying of OP-listed editors with "newly added" editors being notified by manual notifications by volunteers or involved editors. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Closure of Talk:Burning of Parliament Thread

Resolved

- by virtue of close. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that before closing a dispute thread between me and SchroCat, he deleted my last comment, which pointed out his continued dishonesty in this dispute. Hardly cricket, is it? I anticipate he'll delete this comment, too--he really doesn't like it when you point out that what he's said is not true. I'm frankly bored with this discussion, but as long as he keeps deleting my comments without removing his own, I will keep pointing that out. 199.108.124.254 (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

What I have said is correct: you are in error, but seem unable to acknowledge it. Time for you to move on and stop being a disruptive troll. – SchroCat (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm pinging TransporterMan (current co-ordinator) for his view on this. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Both of you!! User:SchroCat and User:199.108.124.154. Read the civility policy and the policy against personal attacks. I have converted the irregular close of this thread into a regular volunteer close based on the fact that this board is voluntary and SchroCat declines to take part in resolution here. Discussion of content issues should continue at Talk:Burning of Parliament. Binding resolution of content issues can be done via Request for Comments, the only content dispute resolution process that is binding. Take any conduct issues to WP:ANI, but first read the boomerang essay. SchroCat: Do not close threads or delete comments. Both of you: Read the policies again. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

2015 Atlantic Hurricane Season

I closed the request concerning the Atlantic hurricane season for two reasons. First, the filing unregistered editor had failed to notify the other editors. Second, it is being dealt with as disruptive editing. Multiple IPs have been blocked, and the article has been semi-protected. It isn't, in my opinion, simple vandalism, but it is a case of a single editor going on an unjustified language crusade, insisting on changing the spelling from Henri (the official spelling) to Henry (the usual English spelling, but not the official spelling). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

One Against Many, but in the middle

There is a good essay, One Against Many, written by a dispute resolution volunteer. My question has to do with a case that isn't covered in it. It is written primarily to address the editor who is the "one" against what is otherwise a consensus. It gives good advice there, such as considering whether you may simply be wrong, or, if the local consensus is thought to be against a global consensus, use a Request for Consensus to get a real consensus. It also gives good advice to the "many" about how to deal with the "one": if the one editor is a newbie, be polite and try to explain; if the one editor is a combative editor, use dispute resolution rather than having another battle; if the one editor has a good reputation and is respected, consider whether they might be right. However, what I would like advice on is the situation in which there is a dispute that is one against many, and I am on neither side, because someone did request dispute resolution, and I am the moderator or mediator. I have been in this situation more than once recently. Too often, the problem is that, although someone had the good sense to request dispute resolution, no one has a mind set to engage in dispute resolution, because they want truth. Sometimes the many want the moderator to close the dispute to reflect existing local consensus. My choice, if I see that compromise is not possible, is to try to direct both sides to RFC, but sometimes the many don't want to bother with RFC, and sometimes the one wants to control the RFC favorably (when RFCs should be neutral). Sometimes one or another of the many complain that the case shouldn't have been opened because the one is just wrong. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

So this is at least a two-part question. First, does anyone have any advice for moderators who find themselves dealing with one-against-many? Should a moderator be willing to close a thread as Resolved due to local consensus? (That seems wrong, because the one editor has his rights, including the right to take part in an RFC.) Second, have I made any specific mistakes in any of my recent one-against-many disputes? (I had to fail one. I have another still open where I am at least hoping to get an RFC.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Do any other experienced dispute resolution volunteers, or, for that matter, new dispute resolution volunteers, who are probably experienced editors, have any general or specific thoughts on what the volunteer moderator should do with "one against many" when some of the editors are unreasonable? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts: I'm probably not in the best position at the current moment to comment on this topic, but we need to remind involved editors that they need to be solely focused on the content dispute (rather than any judgements they have on the filing of a WP:DRR service, whether it is DRN, RfC, FM, whatever; or on any behavioural disputes) at the start of the case filing and to let them know what mediators can and can't do. If there is a behavioural problem with a specific editor(/s), then the DRN case should probably be deferred to ANI or ArbCom (as much as I hate thinking about failing a discussion), though we should think about updating the "case progress template" to include 'deferred to xxx' to be used when another DR service has 'taken over' or DRN mediators decide that it needs to be moved rather than saying that it failed.

As to the "One vs. Many" filings; we deal with them case by case. We hear out both sides, we remind each editor that DRN is for content-only disputes, not for any behavioural disputes, and go from there with our gut-instincts about each case. As said at the start, these are just my thoughts and I may not be in the best place to comment at the moment but I'll put them out there. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

My position has been that if there is a strong, clear consensus and the one editor in opposition to the consensus files here that we should close the case because there is no actual dispute. I'm not ordinarily in favor of recommending that they go on to RFC, though I think that's technically legitimate for them to do so (though they're risking a snowy close), because consensus already exists and to recommend that simply encourages a single editor's failure to drop the stick. If consensus is not clear or is weak, then I think we should take the case, provided that all other prerequisites are met. My rule of thumb for adjudging consensus can be read in this edit. By the way, I'm extremely busy in real life and have been for the last two or three weeks, I'm keeping an eye on things here, but am wielding a very light hand. The RW burden ought to clear up almost entirely by next Monday. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I think Robert McClenon's comment "sometimes the many want the moderator to close the dispute to reflect existing local consensus" identifies a key issue. It often is accompanied by the many pointing to some policy and demanding that the DRN mediator enforce the policy. (They may be right about the policy or they may be misapplying or misinterpreting it).

Consider what the probable result is if the DRN volunteer does that. Now the one, who had everybody against him and feels like he alone is standing up for what is right, suddenly has one more person against him. In what universe is that likely to change the situation?

What if instead the DRN volunteer is sympathetic and asks questions that lead the one to seeing his error? Let's say that his preferred version is unsourced, and at least half a dozen people have pointedly and aggressively told him so on the article talk page. Now he runs into a sympathetic and friendly volunteer who asks something like "obviously you have not been to the moon yourself, so somewhere along the line you learned that the moon is literally made of green cheese. Where did you learn that? Who told you? Are we sure that that person is an expert on the subject?" and so on. By gently guiding him into coming to the correct conclusion on his own, you solve the content dispute forever. These are standard mediation techniques, and they often work.

Now consider what the probable result is if the DRN volunteer immediately takes sides. The one digs in his heels and suddenly the DRN volunteer is in the role of a cop with zero authority and zero power. This is true even when it is glaringly obvious who is right.

Alas, sometimes when you try the above one of the many goes berserk, reporting the DRN volunteer on the DRN talk page or ANI, withdrawing from the case in a huff, or otherwise trying to pull a power play in order to get DRN to work the way he thinks it should work. I don't have a good answer to that problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I will conclude that, in the second of the two cases that prompted this inquiry, the "one" editor agreed to a compromise, and the thread has been marked as "resolved" (one of the less-than-common successes for this noticeboard), in spite of the insistence by two of the "many" editors that the "one" editor wasn't in good faith. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

As I explained, Robert, I'd previously suggested exactly the same wording on the article's talk page. (I simply copied and pasted it.) The "one" promptly disregarded it (without even bothering to comment) and reiterated his preferred wording in the subsection that I created, apparently because he'd just decided to take his grievance to DRN in the hope of getting the answer he wanted. I praised his eventual decision to reconsider his position, but this occurred only after his argument again failed to gain traction.

In other words, the case's acceptance discouraged compromise (thereby dragging out the dispute, with no effect on its outcome) by offering the "one" an additional opportunity to prevail outright (with compromise available as a fallback in the worst-case scenario). Congratulations on this "success". —David Levy 18:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Concerns

Robert requested my concerns be raised here (instead of on his talk page), so I've transferred the discussion. —David Levy 20:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I must say that DRN's procedures are rather unclear to editors lacking advance familiarity. The practice of simply collapsing non-compliant comments (with no effort made to assist users who contributed them in good faith, or even to provide detailed explanations of where they went wrong) seems bitey and counterproductive. Additionally, I'm curious as to why Joe's comments about other editors (including his incorrect attribution of someone else's comment to me – mentioned by name) have been left untouched. —David Levy 08:57/14:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review Joe's comments and collapse them as appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. You appear to have missed the specific statement to which I referred ("The overwhelming consensus that David suggests is merely 4:1"). I didn't make the "overwhelming consensus" claim.

I hope that my general concerns can be discussed. The current practices seem highly likely to upset and discourage well-intentioned users who lack a complete understanding of the process. (Despite editing Wikipedia regularly for almost eleven years, I was thrown for a loop when my good-faith comments were collapsed and labeled a "personal attack".) —David Levy 20:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Robert advised us to "direct all comments to [him], the moderator, and not to each other. That is, please do not engage in threaded discussion." Given the context, I interpreted the "threaded discussion" instruction as pertinent to comments made "to each other". When I replied to Robert, Drcrazy102 continued the thread, seemingly confirming this interpretation.
I don't understand what purpose a prohibition of threaded replies is intended to serve at DRN. It's as though someone copied the Arbitration Committee's format without stopping to consider its applicability (or lack thereof) to an informal process. —David Levy 08:57/14:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a perception that those of us mentioning Joe's conduct are attempting to misuse DRN as a forum in which to address a behavioral dispute. In actuality, Kevin and I are trying to communicate that it's not the appropriate forum. Joe is abusing the DRN process as a means of forum shopping. He has absolutely no desire to cooperate with other editors on the matter at hand. From day one, he's rejected each and every possible solution other than his own. Even on the DRN page itself, Joe has described his edits to the article's lead as "obviously necessary" and reiterated that his desired resolution is to end the "quibbling" that's stood in his way. His proposed "compromise" entails exactly the same changes for which he's argued (and initially edit warred) from the beginning. (He responded in kind when I suggested actual compromise wording on the article's talk page.) Surely, this is isn't how DRN is intended to function. —David Levy 08:57/14:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a behavioral dispute. Holding a minority opinion stubbornly is not an abuse of DRN. DRN is intended only to discuss article content and not conduct or actions by other editors. (In this respect, it is different than talk pages in general.) I don't see any evidence of forum shopping, because I don't see a discussion of this article in any other forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Holding a minority opinion stubbornly is not an abuse of DRN.

Agreed. I don't take issue with that. The abuse is Joe's spurious collaboration. As noted above, his "compromise" is yet another restatement of the exact changes that he's sought to make (initially through edit warring) from the very beginning. When he dishonestly labels this a "compromise", it's difficult to continue assuming good faith on his part. —David Levy 20:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Please be civil and assume good faith. Attributing dishonesty to an editor is a personal attack. Your opinion and his as to what is a compromise may differ. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Please be civil and assume good faith. Attributing dishonesty to an editor is a personal attack.

Have you read those pages in their entirety? We aren't unconditionally forbidden from asserting that an editor has acted in bad faith.

From Wikipedia:Civility:
"The assume good faith (AGF) guideline says that unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, editors should assume that others are trying to help, not hurt the project. The guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence of intentional wrongdoing. However, do not assume there is more misconduct than evidence supports. Given equally plausible interpretations of the evidence, choose the most positive one."

From Wikipedia:Assume good faith:
"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism). Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such."

From Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack?:
"Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence."

It's highly unlikely that Joe misunderstands the meaning of the word "compromise", given that he's demonstrated high intelligence and fluency in the English language. So when he restates the exact changes that he's sought from the beginning and labels them a "compromise", this is strong evidence of dishonesty on his part. I see no other plausible explanation. —David Levy 22:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

DRN is intended only to discuss article content and not conduct or actions by other editors.

I understand that. As noted above, we didn't seek to discuss Joe's behavior here. We were citing it to explain why we felt that a DRN case was inappropriate and unhelpful. Is there an accepted means of communicating that opinion? —David Levy 20:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You may withdraw from a DRN case, since DRN is voluntary. However, if this case had been declined at DRN, the filing editor would have been given advice by a volunteer as to what venue to take the issue to, and that advice would probably have been to use an RFC, which is the way that I am trying to resolve this dispute anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but that doesn't answer my question. —David Levy 22:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of forum shopping, because I don't see a discussion of this article in any other forum.

Have you visited the article's talk page? —David Levy 20:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Taking a dispute from the article's talk page to the dispute resolution noticeboard is not forum shopping. Discussion at the article talk page is a required precondition for the dispute resolution noticeboard. Taking a dispute to WP:DRN and to WP:ANI, or taking a dispute to WP:DRN and a specialized noticeboard is forum-shopping. DRN is precisely intended to discuss content issues that have already been discussed without resolution at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. It was forum shopping because of the circumstances discussed above.

However, the situation appears to have changed (thankfully), and I sincerely commend Joe for reconsidering his position and deciding to embrace common ground. (I wish that he'd replied to the identical suggestion on the talk page instead of pasting his preferred wording below it, but let's move forward.) —David Levy 22:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I will note that this case has been resolved by a compromise. Several editors have agreed, and others have not disagreed. Sometimes discussion aimed at compromise works better than making conduct allegations, but that is only my opinion, and is worth what you paid me for it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion aimed at compromise, eh? Like when I suggested exactly the same wording on the article's talk page and Joe ignored it (in favor of pushing for his preferred outcome at DRN)?

You did read the message to which you replied, right? —David Levy 18:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

A main concern here (at least for me) is how WP:DR may be perceived by relatively new users. Say that I'm a new user and I am involved in a content dispute on an article's talk page. One of the more experienced editors points me to WP:DR if I feel that the discussion on the article's talk page has reached an impasse. I start reading the policy and come to WP:DR#Resolving content disputes with outside help, and what do I see? The first "choice" given is DRN. So if I were a new user, then that is where I'd take the content dispute in the same manner as the fairly new editor on E. A. Poe's talk page. Robert, I read your Sequences of Steps on the DR talk page, and I agree with your sequence list. As I recall, DRN used to be down below WP:30 and WP:RFC in that paragraph, which began with 3O and went from there. Now DRN appears to whoever reads the policy to be the first choice after informal article talk page discussion. While nothing actually tells editors that DRN is first, there it is on top of other choices that should be exhausted first before dispute resolution is sought on the noticeboard. Do we have to discuss the removal of DRN from the very top of that section? I really don't think it belongs there. Painius 06:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
PS. We might even want to consider adding RfC to the informal talk page discussion that is now the only stated prerequisite for DRN. PS added by Painius

I've boldly added a prefatory paragraph to WP:DR#Resolving content disputes with outside help to try to clarify that matter. It's further confused by including forums which aren't really DR forums in the discussion, and I've tried to address that as well. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I've made some additional edits aimed to improve efficacy and flow without (hopefully) undermining the points in Tman's version which I think are relevant and accurate.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

That is an improvement. I will comment that there is a myth, sometimes stated by experienced editors, that an RFC should be used before DRN, and that DRN should only be used after an RFC. Does this reflect an older ranking, or is this just a misconception? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Myth? It is no myth, Robert, even to you apparently if we go by your Sequences of Steps on the DR talk page. You list RfC as "c1" followed by DRN at c2. It is no myth, but it is logic and common sense to say that editors should first discuss a dispute on the talk page of the article/page where a revert has taken place. If that informal dispute cannot be settled, then the next step in the process is WP:3O (if it applies) and RfC. While RfCs usually settle disputes by way of community consensus, there are times when the !votes and the rationales are not inclined to show a true consensus. At that point, an editor must either accept that there is no consensus and that the status quo must be held, or use the DR noticeboard to, sort of, "break the tie". I've come to WP:DR on a few occasions in the past, and I have recommended DR to other editors many times; however, I don't recall ever seeing DRN placed above even 3O in the sequence that begins with the Moderated discussion subsection of the second section at DR. 3O has always been given first, and then RfC, and then DRN. What's a new editor, who wants to settle a dispute, to think? They'll think just as the new editor in the Poe dispute thought: DRN before RfC – and that's just not right. Pleasant pathways, Painius 22:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It is a myth, even if I wrote it. The sequence of steps, as User:TransporterMan has stressed, is 3O (when only two editors), DRN, RFM for formal mediation, RFC. RFC is the only procedure that is binding on the community. I will rearrange the steps. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I wrote that as a question, and was subsequently informed otherwise. RFC is the last step in content resolution. The idea that DRN or RFM should be preceded by RFC is a myth. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a talk page, with my signature. It isn't a policy page, and a policy page isn't signed. As I said, some experienced editors, including myself, haven't always understood the sequence. However, the idea that DRN is the next step after RFC is a myth. RFC is often a next step after DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Robert, IMHO it's just a misconception — indeed, I don't think that I've ever seen anyone say it (though I don't doubt you when you say that you have) — and I think, as I stated in that prefatory paragraph, that it can happen anywhere in the DR sequence. The real fact, when it gets right down to brass tacks, is that there is no required order of DR steps. There is a "natural" order and there are practical considerations which create disincentives to going backwards to that natural order, but RFC doesn't really fit anywhere in that natural order except that for those forums which have the rule that they will not process cases which have other DR processes pending — 3O, DRN, and MEDCOM — having an RFC pending or filing an RFC in the midst of a pending case will usually have the effect of that case being refused or closed. That kind of makes RFC the "highest" DR process, but it's really only because there is no mechanism for closing an RFC filing while a DR case is pending, while there is a process for doing the opposite. I can make an argument that it's also the highest process because it's the one which most closely resembles the wiki-ideal of consensus through community discussion and, for that reason, I'm not particularly in favor of adding a rule to RFC to allow it to be closed if its filed while a 3O, DRN, or MEDCOM case is pending. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

RFC is the only procedure that is binding on the community.

What do you mean? Like DRN, RfC is an informal process. It simply provides a method of seeking consensus, which is no more "binding" than that which is reached via any other means. It isn't a community-driven version of the Arbitration Committee. —David Levy 22:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Australian Head of State

The Australian head of state case has been waiting for four days for a moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

This isn't looking promising :( GoodDay (talk) 03:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Robert has opened the case.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep, it's a go. Now, to get the participants to show up. All 3 of them, have been scarcely around the topic, these last 24-48 hrs. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Just because I'm an American doesn't mean I can't be neutral on an Australian question. I first had to close a case that wasn't going anywhere. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Nobody's questioning your neutrality. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Proportional Representation

Can another volunteer please look at the Proportional Representation dispute? The filing party is presenting it as a conduct dispute, and this board isn't for conduct disputes. It appears that multiple other editors have seen it as a content dispute and have asked to have it taken here, but I don't know what I can do if the filing party won't present the content issues concisely. Can someone else advise? It looks like a neutral-point-of-view dispute to me, and presenting articles neutrally is a content matter unless it becomes tendentious. What can we, the DRN community, do next? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I tried some very informal mediation between parties on the talk page, and an ANI conduct dispute was filed (before my attempt) but ignored which was also part of the issue that has evolved. I'm hesitant to try and again mediate between parties since the last attempt failed due to a block (different article IIRC) being issued to one of the parties, which prevented talk page discussion; as well as because of prior involvement. If it is acceptable, I will try to "coach" parties on how to write their summary (purely from a copy-edit perspective) which might help, but I feel that both parties have intertwined the conduct and content disputes into a "battleground" dispute. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The other party hasn't edited Wikipedia in four days. If the other editor doesn't respond, now that the filing party has presented a specific content issue, I will close the case due to lack of participation. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I am willing to participate. In order to address the specific content issue that BalCoder has addressed. I have provided a plethora of sources which list MMP as a mixed electoral system. "Mixed member proportional representation (MMP), a hybrid method that uses party list PR as its proportional component, and FPTP as its plurality component is considered a mixed system, which is a distinct voting system.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^: 22^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]" The other two electoral systems are: proportional representation and Plurality/Majoritarian. This fact is supported by the above sources. Please not that ALL mixed electoral systems share elements of both PR and Plurality/Majoritarian systems. Sharing an element with either end of the spectrum does not mean that MMP is somehow on one end. It is, quite frankly, in the middle.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I closed the Proportional representation case due to lack of participation. As I said at the beginning, I expect every participant in any dispute that I moderate to check on it at least once every 48 hours. I have now taken on another case and am not moderating the proportional representation dispute. However, you can refile the request, and ask that another volunteer moderator take it on. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

References

^ "Voting Systems Made Simple". Electoral Reform Society.
^ "Electoral Systems". Administration and Cost of Elections (ACE) Project. Retrieved 31 Aug 2015.
^ O’Neal, Brian. "Electoral Systems". Parliament of Canada. Retrieved 31 Aug 2015.
^ "Voting Counts: Electoral Reform for Canada" (PDF). Law Commission of Canada. 2004. p. 22.
^ Forder, James (2011). The case against voting reform. Oxford: Oneworld Publications. ISBN 978-1-85168-825-8.
^ "Electoral Systems and the Delimitation of Constituencies". International Foundation for Electoral Systems. 2 Jul 2009.
^ Moser, Robert G. (Dec 2004). "Mixed electoral systems and electoral system effects: controlled comparison and cross-national analysis" (in Volume 23 and Issue 4). Electoral Studies: An International Journal: 575–599. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
^ Massicotte, Louis (Sep 1999). "Mixed electoral systems: a conceptual and empirical survey" (in Volume 18 and Issue 3). Electoral Studies: An International Journal: 341–366. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
^ Manow, Philip (2007). "Electoral rules and legislative turnover: Evidence from Germany's mixed electoral system" (in Volume 30 and Issue 1). Electoral Studies: An International Journal: 195–207. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)

Request for Moderators

There are multiple cases waiting for moderators. Will any volunteers who do not have cases please try to take cases if their time permits? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Aloysius Stepinac

G'day all, Drcrazy102 is unable to give this case much attention due to RLI, which is fair enough. I didn't bring this case, Erosonog did, but it is a large and multi-pronged case and there is a need to review sources for reliability, do a fair bit of reading etc. If another volunteer isn't available to work through it, my view is that it should be closed, and I will attempt to address the dispute(s) using RfC and RSN in the first instance. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, due to lack of response here, I am withdrawing from this DRN. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Forum Shopping?

In one of the cases that is currently waiting for a moderator, the filing party (maybe impatient to get the content dispute settled), went to the Help Desk to ask the same question that is being asked at this noticeboard. I closed that thread at the Help Desk with the comment that it was forum shopping because a request for dispute resolution was already pending here. The Help Desk is not a designated venue for content disputes, and common advice at the Help Desk for content disputes is to read the dispute resolution policy, discuss on the article talk page, and if necessary follow one of the dispute resolution procedures. (Many inexperienced editors reasonably come to the Help Desk with content questions and really need advice that the talk page is the proper place.) My question is whether closing the Help Desk thread as forum shopping was reasonable. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

"Forum shopping" refers to deceptively seeking multiple forums, when one is not getting their desired outcome. If there were no such ill intent apparent, then it wasn't forum shopping. A procedural close was still appropriate, though, with a referral back to this page, and a polite notice of the policy to help the user avoid the appearance of forum shopping in the future. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The consensus policy doesn't refer to deception in deprecating forum shopping. It refers to seeking opinions from multiple admins or in multiple forums, not to doing so deceptively. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think labeling it as forumshopping is correct. I'm not entirely sure of the details, but forumshopping does include a sense of malice. Deception isn't necessarily the right word, but the idea is that you're jumping from board to board until you find a result that satisfies your own position. It's quite possible to address an issue on multiple boards at the same time, so long as one noticeboard isn't being used in an attempt to overturn another. For example, a content dispute may violate OR and NPOV policies, so it's okay to address both forums and set up the dilemma in terms relevant to the correct noticeboard. So it's possible the person went to the DRN but isn't sure if that's the correct noticeboard, so also asked the help desk just in case. The helpdesk is not a DRN, so they don't conflict with each other and shouldn't be considered an example of forumshopping since one result will have no affect on the other. That is what I understand of the forum shopping policy. However, if you feel the DRN will address the concerns and that the help desk inquiry is unnecessary, then I would just close the help desk one stating as such.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I would like to complement Scoobydunk on what I think is a fair and balanced reply to the above comments. In my case I opened the editor help discussion since at the time I really didn't know where to turn. As I said in that discussion, the material that was being debated had not, in my view, impacted the content of the article at that time. Scoobydunk opened the OR discussion involving largely the same material. The thread here was opened because neither of the previous discussions seemed to be getting traction (one short reply in total). Additionally, as of today there are related article edits, not just a talk page discussion. I appreciate that Scoobydunk doesn't see this as forum shopping (something I was hoping to avoid by including the information in the posting here). Springee (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

My general comment has nothing to do with your specific case of opening up a discussion at an additional DRN noticeboard.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for assuming you would have offered a fair and balanced reply. Springee (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

This is telling for multiple reasons. First, you once again demonstrate an ability to misconstrue what others say. Second, I didn't change anything in my response, which you considered "fair and balanced" when you thought it supported your actions. Then, the moment I tell you that it had nothing to do with your actions, it's suddenly not "fair and balanced". Very telling indeed.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Another attempt

Can I make a second attempt? FrankieL1985 (talk) 11:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I assume that you mean a second attempt to open a discussion of the Yemeni Civil War (2015). The precondition to moderated discussion at DRN is that there must have been extensive discussion at the article talk page, Talk: Yemeni Civil War (2015). I don't see any real discussion on the article talk page, just one post. If you have tried to discuss, and other editors will not engage in discussion, this is not the appropriate venue. If there is edit-warring, and the other editors will not discuss, but persist in edit-warring, then the edit-warring is a conduct issue that should be reported at the edit-warring noticeboard. If you have some other question, we will try to answer it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

[Voting_Systems_Made_Simple-1] "Voting Systems Made Simple". Electoral Reform Society.

[Electoral_Systems-2] "Electoral Systems". Administration and Cost of Elections (ACE) Project. Retrieved 31 Aug 2015.

[parl.gc.ca-3] O’Neal, Brian. "Electoral Systems". Parliament of Canada. Retrieved 31 Aug 2015.

[Law_Commission_of_Canada-4] "Voting Counts: Electoral Reform for Canada" (PDF). Law Commission of Canada. 2004. p. 22.

[forder-5] Forder, James (2011). The case against voting reform. Oxford: Oneworld Publications. ISBN 978-1-85168-825-8.

[Electoral_Systems_and_the_Delimitation_of_Constituencies-6] "Electoral Systems and the Delimitation of Constituencies". International Foundation for Electoral Systems. 2 Jul 2009.

[Mixed_electoral_systems_and_electoral_system_effects:_controlled_comparison_and_cross-national_analysis-7] Moser, Robert G. (Dec 2004). "Mixed electoral systems and electoral system effects: controlled comparison and cross-national analysis" (in Volume 23 and Issue 4). Electoral Studies: An International Journal: 575–599. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)

[Mixed_electoral_systems:_a_conceptual_and_empirical_survey-8] Massicotte, Louis (Sep 1999). "Mixed electoral systems: a conceptual and empirical survey" (in Volume 18 and Issue 3). Electoral Studies: An International Journal: 341–366. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)

[Electoral_rules_and_legislative_turnover:_Evidence_from_Germany's_mixed_electoral_system-9] Manow, Philip (2007). "Electoral rules and legislative turnover: Evidence from Germany's mixed electoral system" (in Volume 30 and Issue 1). Electoral Studies: An International Journal: 195–207. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]