Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 25

Talk:Abe Vigoda#survived_by
has objected my participation in the case as a volunteer because we both work in ACC. But I fail to foresee what issue that might cause in me moderating this case. If you think I might be biased just because I work in a team with you, be rest assured that won't happen. But if you still object, I'm willing to step down. Regards— UY Scuti Talk  04:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no objections, I was just putting it out there as they say. Carry on.  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 04:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Since DRN moderators are often in short supply, it's a good idea to go ahead unless there is some specific conflict. -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 20:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that User:UY Scuti has reasonably put the case on temporary hold to request input from the Language Reference Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * is doing a fine job !  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 20:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A better job than the Reference Desk is doing. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Raises the war-cry "To hell with MOS! We write how we want to!"  Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

An apostrophy S, will solve the problem. "He 's survived by....", should take care of matters :) GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've always read that as "He is ...", not as a past tense "was". This just seems like one of those IAR's which should be handled with a timer-bomb Template:Update after →
 * Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keeping my fingers crossed that it 's accepted ;) GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Dang, it's not being accepted either at the Vigoda article or the reference desk. Was hoping I could've sneaked it past all of them. GoodDay (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The best get around seems to be "Survived by his..."— UY Scuti Talk  10:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That will work.  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 16:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Zionism
I closed the Zionism case based on agreement between the two editors who participated. Another editor, saying that I closed it hastily after only giving him 4 days to reply, has reopened it. I've changed the status of the case to "stale" to indicate that it needs either coordinator attention or a new moderator. I've started work on another thread, and I only work one thread at a time. Also, I would appreciate the comments of other volunteers as to whether an editor (not a volunteer) is permitted to reopen a case, in which case it needs a new moderator, and whether editors should be given more than four days to respond to a filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm the editor that reopened the discussion. The discussion was open for only 4 days (including a weekend), and I didn't get a chance to participate. Is there any reason I can't reopen?
 * There's also a bigger issue here, which is that at least 7 editors participated in the talk page discussion, there was a clear consensus (5-2), then an editor opened DR here and invited only 3 other editors, and out of the 4, only 2 participated. On this basis it was declared that there is consensus for a change that did not have consensus in a wider discussion involving more editors. That can't be right. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm one of the two editors who participated and also do not feel the discussion was satisfactory. I am not quite happy with including the statement at all, and the statement inserted to the article as the result of the discussion was not the same as we discussed. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 06:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that other editors were involved in the discussion. I have marked the thread as needing attention (including another moderator, and addition of other editors, or to be taken up at formal mediation or by an RFC).  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Bot check, please
The bot that updates the table in front of the noticeboard seems not to be working. Can someone please check on it? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Facepalm Really RMC? You can't be even bothered to do any dillegence? The table you describe is in, which typically indicates the last time the bot updated it in a signature line. If you click the user link you'll see who the operator of the bot is... Me.  Probably related to the semi-monthly "We're going to break wikipedia to make it better" changes at Bot_owners%27_noticeboard Hasteur (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. It does appear that they broke your bot.  Thank you for any help that you can provide.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah... the cookie change cause the bot to unwork... Once I forced a new login, all was calm Hasteur (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Geopolymer Dispute
In addition to declining the thread because there had been inadequate discussion, the lengthy post by the other editor contained a legal threat. The other editor has been blocked. There appears to be considerable off-wiki enmity between the two editors, possibly due to business interests. (Since libel isn't alleged, the purpose of the legal threat probably has to do with business interests. It doesn't matter.  Wikipedia doesn't allow legal threats.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

IP
How can I enter a case as an IP editor?-217.248.29.218 (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This editor has now filed an RFC at the article talk page, but there's no rule which prevents an IP editor from filing a case here. See the previous discussion, just above. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For background, first, the unregistered editor had filed a Third Opinion request, which I declined due to more than two editors, and advised them to file here. At the same time, an unregistered editor had filed the Erwin Rommel case, but forgot to include themselves as a party, and I advised them to include themselves.  They then added a second IP address, and another volunteer suggested, but did not demand, that they register an account.  It really is easier to communicate if you have an account, or a completely static IP address, and there is not always a guarantee of a completely static IP address.  I don't know why unregistered editors won't accept the useful advice to register accounts.  I think that they think that IP addresses provide them with more privacy, when the opposite is true.  IP addresses can be geolocated (unless they are used maliciously to IP-hop, and malicious IP editors do not file here), and pseudonymous accounts have complete privacy except from highly trusted Checkuser functionaries.  I don't know why unregistered editors won't take the advice to register, but they can file here.  (I am in a minority who think that unregistered editing should be restricted, but that is my opinion, and I will honor Wikipedia policy.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "I don't know why unregistered editors won't accept the useful advice to register accounts." - Just accept that not everyone wants to do things the same way as you do.-217.248.47.101 (talk) 09:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe there is no rule, but when I request a dispute resolution, all I get is an error message: "Can't see anything? Please make sure the Form for filing disputes at the dispute resolution noticeboard gadget is enabled in your preferences."
 * If you are serious about IP editors, you should give them the same access to dispute resolution as you do for other editors.-217.248.47.101 (talk) 09:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * IP - whatever your name is - the filing form is based on technical settings that are found in registered settings. So it is actually really, really hard to make it accessible to IPs. I have been working on a work-around solution simply by using screenshots and having editors request that a DRN Volunteer file the form for them. I don't think it is the best solution, nor the easiest to either change the form system, not to use the work-around. My position is similar to the opinions expressed above - I don't like IPs that are part of a DRN case dispute because it is nigh-impossible to ensure that they are notified of anything, ranging from "pings" to DRN case filing notifications, since there is no guarantee that you will still appear as the "same" IP. We have to take a very large leap of faith every time we interact with an IP by assuming they are the same person and haven't been changed around. UK IPs are notorious for being blocked as IP-hoppers because of the fast-paced IP changes that are systemic of the region's population density.
 * At any rate IP, this is a very touchy spot for the DRN because we want to help ... but we don't want to have to make sure that it is the same editor each time an IP posts a response. And what happens if your "old" IP address is used to respond on a case? We won't know if it is you or another editor because unregistered accounts are all IPs with no identifiers. An account at least guarantees that we will know that it is you, and not Joe Troll who lives just down the road.
 * Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 22:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

On requesting DR with a different IP address
I don't know if this has happened before, but while I was considering requesting help on a dispute my IP address changed. When I made my edit I had a different IP address than the one I have now (it suddenly changed yesterday). Will that be a problem? I may be over thinking this, but I wondered if there might be some problem with me proving it's still I who made the original edit change that was reverted. Thanks. __209.179.22.107 (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Two things: 1.) Is there a reason you haven't created a username? and 2.) can you provide a link to the dispute you are referring to? Thanks. Meatsgains (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) I have had usernames over the years (I've been editing on Wikipedia almost since it began) but several years ago I stopped large scale work because I was tired of putting in hours of work on something only to see it get hacked to pieces. So for the last several years I've just used IP addresses to do minor edits and provide advice on help pages. Had I known I would run into trouble like this I, well, it's too late now.


 * As for 2), are you asking for the link to my edit? That would be https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erwin_Rommel&diff=prev&oldid=702702740  __209.179.22.107 (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Technically, if you have a user account, deliberately editing logged out is considered sockpuppetry. In any case, you are seeing one of the reasons why we strongly advise editors to get and use user accounts, which is that IP addresses change.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not correct. The Sockpuppetry policy says, "Editors who use unlinked alternative accounts, or who edit as an IP address editor separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles or topics, because even innocuous activities such as copy editing, wikifying, or linking might be considered sock puppetry in some cases and innocuous intentions will not usually serve as an excuse." (Emphasis added.) If it's true that this IP editor has not used his user accounts in years, there's no possibility of crossover. I've considered proposing here that we adopt a new rule that we will not accept cases in which the filing party or a necessary responding party is an IP editor due to the confusion that it causes when dynamic IP addresses change, but that flies in the face of WP's acceptance of IP editing and also works against registered editors who have a dispute with IP editors. In the past, however, I've made it known that I will not take on a case in which the filing party is an IP unless they use an registered account and identify the IP addresses from which they have been editing up until that point. I would recommend the same position (which I don't take when the IPs are responding parties, though I'll encourage them to register, too) to all other volunteers here. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I accept the correction, which only has to do with whether there is a technical violation that should be ignored, or no violation. What restrictions are you saying we should and should not impose on IPs?  As long as Wikipedia allows IP editing, we shouldn't impose burdensome requirements on their using DRN, so the question is what rules can we reasonably impose on them?  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm saying that we shouldn't impose any, i.e. that as a noticeboard we should treat them like any other editor, so I suppose that I should have made that clearer above, "but that flies in the face of WP's acceptance of IP editing and also works against registered editors who have a dispute with IP editors, so I don't think we should do it ." As a volunteer, however, I can impose whatever reasonable conditions I wish to impose upon my offer to take a case and if I want to say, "I'm willing to take this case but only if the IP editors create an account, identify from that account the IP addresses which they've used in the discussion, and only participate here using that account" I feel that I'm free to do so. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 00:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your position is clear, now I would like to know the reasons behind it. Why do you want to treat IP editors as second-class citizens?-217.248.47.101 (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Because dealing with IPs in a discussion is a very challenging issue, with many parts. likely has the same reasoning as myself and many other editors of not wanting to have long, drawn-out discussions with an IP because; (a) we can only assume that the IP address has the same person behind it. We can't actually know for certain that we are responding to the right editor; (b) we can't contact you in the same way we can a registered user (an account) through the use of pings and talkpage messages which is, again, related to the fact that nobody can really know that it is the same person behind the same IP address; (c) IPs cannot, seemingly, file DRN cases because you lack the required settings that are found in registered accounts. There are several more, some petty, some technical, none relevant here.
 * You say that you have held an account in the past; can you not just use that old account for the duration of the DRN case and then go back to IP-editing. (I'd say anonymous, but it really isn't for IPs.) This solves everyone's problems without actually inconveniencing anybody to any substantial degree. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 22:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Dr. C stated my case quite well, thanks. I have little or nothing to add. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 02:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I had originally avoided registering a name for my DRN on Rommel as I was worried that it might confuse things even further than it already is now. I will be more than happy to do so if it will help get my case resolved. Would this mean using my IP number as my user name (to avoid more confusion) or to come up with a brand new user name? I would appreciate any advice on this. Thanks.
 * I would advise not using an IP address as a username because that would confuse, because some editors would not recognize it as a username but would think it is an IP address. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, I noticed a mistake on the article's page. At the top, under Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN), at the beginning of the second paragraph, it reads: "The DRN noticeboard has a rotating co-ordinator, whose is to help keep..." it looks like somebody left out a word after whose. Presumably the missing word is "job," someone may want to fix it. Hope that helps. __209.179.22.107 (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * a few days ago Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross Dispute
As TransporterMan states on the project page, the filing party has been topic-banned from the topic as per discretionary sanctions. And that is that. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

General Question on Notice
As a general question, if a case is filed at DRN, but the filing party does not provide proper notice to the other parties, how long should the case be pending before it is closed for failure to provide notice? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * My opinion: 72 hours after their first edit (per their contribution history) after being reminded here or 72 hours after the reminder if they have not edited since being reminded. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Dog Breed Case
Does anyone want to look at and possibly improve my handling of the malformed case about dog breeds? The filing party didn't use the proper template, so that I enclosed the filing in DRN archive templates and sent them back to the talk pages. Was that a right thing to do? Can it be improved? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Listings not made through the bot should be removed altogether because they interfere with our maintenance bot. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that the dog breed case has been removed. Has the filing party been advised of why and told to use the bot?  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. Told why it was removed, but advised not to refile until there had been adequate discussion and then to use bot. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. If it had been properly filed with inadequate discussion, it would have been closed as premature.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

ResellerRatings
The DRN topic on ResellerRatings should not have been closed yet. Techimo went and edited the article despite being instructed not to by moderator Joel.Miles925. The article reads even more like company PR now than it did previously. The moderator stated, "I very much believe that the claims by Techimo that he is not affiliated with ResellerRatings are suspect at best. Please fix the POV issues and then consider expanding the article. Techimo, do not revert any edits that ZeroShadows makes regarding POV. ZeroShadows: please make your edits constructive." To me, that means since the moderator suspects Techimo of COI, I'm supposed to edit the article, and he was supposed to leave my edits alone, and we'd allow the moderator to further comment. Instead, he's gone and made edits and the article is, in my opinion, even more biased than it was previously. New sections have been added as well, which the moderator specifically instructed not to be done. I don't want to start an edit war and the article is in worse condition now than it was previously. Where do I go from here? ZeroShadows (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * First, we have good-faith errors by an inexperienced moderator. The discussion wasn't complete, and I don't think that the moderator should have closed the case.  Also, the comment by the moderator that they thought that one of the parties was affiliated with the subject of the article was non-neutral.  Second, an editor is definitely going against the spirit of the instructions by the moderator.  I would welcome any comments by User:TransporterMan.  My own advice at this point would be either to take any concerns about conflict of interest to the conflict of interest noticeboard, or to develop a Request for Comments, except that the RFC will have to be neutrally worded.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It was my understanding that the DRN Is a forum to discuss content, not editors. This has turned into a debate about who has COI or whether one editor or another should be making edits. If I should be arguing COI, I can: ZeroShadows is likely the same person who previously was banned by a Wikipedia admin for creating an account "NotTechimo" in an effort to impersonate me. He also reverted over 100 edits prior to being banned. This is all outlined on the Talk:ResellerRatings page. I'm sure that an admin can check ZeroShadows IP to confirm this. It's also easy for me to demonstrate that ZeroShadows has COI, which explains why he so badly wants to bash this business, and I welcome the opportunity to respond in that regard if it comes to that. However, since we're in the DRN, and this is about content, I'm open to continuing the discussion to ensure that the article has NPOV and well sourced encyclopedic content. Techimo (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Follow-Up
I have reverted the closure of this case, because it appears that there wasn't agreement among the parties to close it. I am willing to moderate the discussion of this article, subject to a few conditions. The following are not merely discouraged, but are forbidden:
 * Discussion of the conduct of other editors (as opposed to content). (Withdraw from this case and go to WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay.)
 * Edits, even minor edits, to the article. (Discuss them here.)
 * Suggestions of conflict of interest. (Withdraw from this case and go to WP:COIN.)
 * Comments about multiple accounts. (Withdraw from this case and file a sock-puppet report.)
 * Incivility.

If the parties are willing to agree to moderated discussion subject to those conditions, I am willing to moderate. Are the parties willing? (If not, this case will be closed as failed.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Second Moderator advice I would suggest that there be a two-strike system for these types of infractions. RMC gives a strong warning the first time and summarily closes the request citing conditions beyond DRN scope on the second infraction. Hasteur (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am willing to have that, as opposed to the one-strike system that is implied by what I had written. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I am a new moderator and this was my first case (and I probably was in error in closing the case). However, I do believe that I made the correct decision and the continued attempts to turn the article into PR by Techimo prove that. I strongly encourage Robert McClenon to make the same choice. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I am willing to proceed. I have tried to remain as civil as possible. I merely mentioned the moderator's opinion of COI. I did not express my opinion on that subject here, and I won't be addressing Techimo's COI opinions stated above, per the instructions provided. Thank you for addressing my concerns. ZeroShadows (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Follow-Up to Follow-Up
As you can see, I closed this case without prejudice because I didn't hear from either of the other two editors. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * FYI, the editor (ZeroShadows) who opened the request for dispute resolution was indefinitely blocked for sock puppetry. Thank you for your efforts. Techimo (talk) 10:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Peyton Manning
Shortly after filing here, the filing party filed at WP:ANI. I had to close the case. It looks like forum shopping. In any case, we do not accept a dispute that is pending at another dispute resolution forum, either another content forum or a conduct forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Benjamin Disraeli
I had asked the filing unregistered editor to make an opening statement, either from an IP address or from a new registered account, within 48 hours. They didn't. I closed the case. Any of the editors can refile without prejudice. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change
I closed the case on Avoiding dangerous climate change because, as filed, it was a request for dispute resolution about an AFD, and I said that if they wanted to discuss the article, they should discuss at the article talk page. I didn't see discussion at the article talk page of either article. Is it correct that DRN is not the proper forum for discussing an AFD? I then got a reply that I thought was uncivil at my user talk page, and tried to reply civilly and the talk page of the filer. It may be that they disagree with the close of the AFD, in which DRV, not DRN, is the right forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Does anyone want to comment on my close of the Avoiding dangerous climate change case? It appeared to me that it should be either at DRV or at a talk page?  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I was part of the AfD. I tend to agree with your decision, and opened a thread on the talk page. In my view, full discussion had not been achieved at the AfD talk, and there is no need to ask for third-party input yet.
 * This being said, I am not familiar with all the dispute resolution processes, so my opinion has little weight. Tigraan (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Recommended Policy Re-Reading for New Volunteers
I have two suggestions for policies that should be required re-reading by new DRN volunteers. (Since new DRN volunteers are often experienced editors, they have probably already read these important policies, but should re-read them because a precise understanding is sometimes important in content disputes.) They are Wikipedia is not censored and what is not vandalism.

The first policy is frequently misconstrued in content disputes. Some editors think that the policy is a license to argue against the removal of non-neutral point of view material, undue weight, or material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons on the grounds that the removal is "censorship". As the policy states, material will be removed to maintain neutral point of view and prevent BLP violations. The policy only states that material will not be removed because it is offensive. (However, offensive material may be removed if it is inappropriate for some other reason. The insertion of irrelevant profanity in an article is a common form of vandalism.  It will be reverted, not so much because it is offensive, as because it is irrelevant to the article and disruptive.)  Moderators need to understand exactly what this policy does and does not say, because sometimes an editor will complain "Censorship" inappropriately.

The second policy is also important in content disputes. Some editors will claim that the removal or reversion of their edits is vandalism. Real vandalism is not the subject of a content dispute. Moderators need to understand exactly what is not vandalism, because allegations that good-faith (even incorrect good faith) edits are vandalism make it difficult to resolve content disputes.

While moderators do not take "sides" in content disputes, they have to be on the "side" of understanding Wikipedia policy, and correct understanding of these policies is sometimes important to resolving content disputes.

Comments? Questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Certainly the ordinary "vandals" are easy to spot -- they blank pages, paint swastikas on graveyards, and replace images of politicians with other biological species. Vandals don't always arrive as lone gunmen, however. Nothing stops vandals from attacking WP in gangs or packs, committed to political or sociological agendas. Such groups have the potential of being vandal-like in their WP:NOTHERE intentions.   Just as nice manners are not exclusive to nice people, good grammar and subtle editing is not exclusive to well-intended editors.  The pro-WP editor who encounters such a group may very well open a DRR to bring attention to the issue or resolve it.  I therefore argue that the statement above is erroneous and should be removed from the policy ("Real vandalism is not the subject of a content dispute."). Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * An editor wrote: 'I therefore argue that the statement above is erroneous and should be removed from the policy ("Real vandalism is not the subject of a content dispute.").'  What policy?  Those words are on this talk page, not in a policy.  Anyway, real vandalism is not the subject of a content dispute.  As what is not vandalism explains, there are various sorts of bad conduct that are not vandalism.  Editing with a political or sociological agenda is not vandalism and may be the subject of a content dispute.  Non-neutral editing can be harmful to Wikipedia, but is usually done in good faith and is not vandalism.  Do not refer to edits as vandalism unless it is clear that they were done in bad faith.  Do any other DRN volunteers have comments or questions?  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * (1) "What Policy?" he asked. The "Recommended Policy" proposed, of course. (2) "Usually done in good faith" is not the subject of my comment, so we needn't discuss it.  My comment concerned the cases where it is not done in good faith. And you and I have both seen it on Wikipedia. (3) Please do not use this discussion as a "teachable moment" to instruct me on what I should say in other discussions.  This is this discussion, and you brought up the subject of vandalism.  I hope you will address the issue as it is evolving. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with Robert that tag-teamed POV editing, that is per Sfarney "gangs or packs, committed to political or sociological agendas," while perhaps vandal-like may well be a conduct violation but is not ordinarily vandalism as defined by Wikipedia in VANDAL. NOTHERE is also a matter which is vandal-like but is not vandalism as defined. The distinction is important because, first, vandalism which meets the definition can be reverted immediately without other reason and such reversions are exempt from 3RR, and second, labeling behavior as vandalism when it is not vandalism as defined is itself a sanctionable misbehavior (at least if repeated). As for the conduct/content issue, neither tag-teamed POV editing nor NOTHERE editing is a content matter that will ordinarily be handled at 3O, DRN, or MEDCOM, however. Disputes over the edits which result from such conduct can, of course, be handled in those forums, but discussion of the motives or conduct of the editors who made them will not ordinarily be considered or allowed and editors wishing to discuss such matters will ordinarily be referred to one of the conduct dispute resolution processes, such as ANI. (And if they choose to do so, the content DR process will usually be closed to allow that process to be resolved first.) Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 04:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC) (And, I've un-collapsed this discussion because it does now at least marginally involve what we do here at DRN. — TM) Oh, and PS one more thought: Robert is also right in that the reason that those forums do not accept or allow discussion of conduct is that doing so makes resolving the actual content disputes near impossible. — TM 05:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Also, there is the matter of intent.  The intent of vandalism is to harm Wikipedia, or at least not to improve it.  (Maybe the intention only is to have some dirty fun that doesn't help Wikipedia.)  Although tag-team POV editing harms Wikipedia, its intent is to improve it, because the POV warriors honestly believe that imposing their POV is serving the cause of truth.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with what Robert has said in his first post in this section, but FSM knows that I'd settle for just being sure that new volunteers had both thoroughly re-read and had a practical working knowledge of:
 * V,
 * NOR,
 * NPOV,
 * NOT (which includes NOTCENSORED),
 * BLP,
 * the idea that just because something is one way in one article that doesn't create precedent for it being that way in another, and
 * that the principle that standards adopted by wikiprojects only have the status of essays, not policy or guidelines (source 1) (source 2) except in those rare cases when they have actually been promoted to policy or guidelines (which, ironically, is exactly what happened in source 2, a wikiproject standard which was adopted as a guideline while remaining part of a wikiproject page).

Having the additional knowledge of NOTVAND, would certainly be a lagniappe. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that I overlooked the obvious policies because they seemed obvious to me, but I agree that many parties to cases don't understand the policies, which is sometimes why the cases wind up in dispute resolution, and that moderators need to understand the policies, and if necessary to enforce them. My concern is that some editors who do understand the core policies are nonetheless in the habit of yelling "Censorship" or "Vandalism" to "win" a content dispute.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Uechi-Ryu
Does any other volunteer have advice as to what to say to the filing party? The filing unregistered editor takes issue with changes to the ordering of organizations in a list by another unregistered editor, but the other editor only makes changes to the article and has not discussed. The filing party first went to the Help Desk and was told to read the dispute resolution policy and then follow one of the procedures listed there. They chose to request a Third Opinion, but I declined it because it would have been a Second Opinion. Now they have filed at DRN, which also requires prior discussion on a talk page. Since the other editor doesn't discuss, what advice can the filing party be given? They rightly don't want to edit-war, but what can they do with an editor who won't discuss? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I encountered a slightly different but similar situation at Third Opinion earlier, in which a registered editor would add a template to an article, and had it reverted silently by an unregistered editor. Since there was no discussion, Third Opinion and DRN weren't options, but I was able to advise the registered editor to request semi-protection, which was done. When the article came off semi-protection, the ninja returned, and the article had to be semi-protected again. However, in this case, since both of the editors are unregistered, semi-protection would block the filing party, and the filing party clearly is the one who is trying to edit collaboratively. Does anyone have any advice for the filing party? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Once again, does anyone have any advice for the filing party? (Well, I had one piece of advice for the filing party which they strongly rejected for a completely invalid reason.  I said to create an account, and they said that they valued their privacy.  Many unregistered editors know beyond knowledge that that preserves your privacy better than using a pseudonym, but that is completely wrong.  No one except trusted CheckUser functionaries can see through a pseudonym, but anyone can geolocate an IP address.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The Amazing Race filing
This filing was premature because each editor had only made one statement. However, it appears that the case was filed manually, and didn't have a Status field and a Do Not Archive Until date. For that reason, I had to delete the case and have explained to the filing party on their talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC) User:TransporterMan, User: Hasteur - Is it correct that cases that were not filed using the template should be deleted because they break the bot? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, either deleted or moved manually into the archive. Either works, but I think deletion is preferable. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Or if you want to go the extra mile, you could pro-forma attach the header components of filing a DRN case request. If desired, I could have the bot write to a error log page (or to users talkpages) if the parsing failed. Hasteur (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Going the extra mile might have been appropriate if the filing wasn't premature, but the filing was premature. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Afro
I have a few questions for other volunteers. First, do you agree that the discussion on the article talk page is not sufficient to accept a case here? Second, what is the procedure if the filing party does not list all of the editors who have edited the article? Should editors who have edited the article recently but not discussed also be listed as parties? (My assumption is that they should, because they have a right to discuss here.) Third, if two requests are made concerning the same article by different editors, am I correct that one of the case requests can be opened and the other one declined as a duplicate? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * One statement by each editor isn't enough and I've closed both cases for that reason. What we're looking for is back-and-forth. A couple of edits each is the absolute minimum in my opinion and more than that if the edits aren't substantially on point or are mostly about conduct. The practice here has long been not to worry much about editors who edit but don't discuss; I think that's okay but it does of course have some downside. I wouldn't ever close a case because non-discussing editors are not listed (like I would do an administrative close if more than a couple of editors involved in the discussion were left out), but on the other hand if I knew they were there (which I usually would not know because I don't ordinarily look at the article history) and might be a problem, I might add them myself or ask the listing party about them. As for your "third" I don't see a problem with that, but I just copied-and-pasted my DRN archive top tag from one to the other. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, much of the discussion occurs in the months–long warring via edit summary in the article, including since my filing of the dispute. I was hoping to achieve some form of consensus with the help of mediation rather than going the block–by–WP:EW route.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(ring-ring)  03:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you make one more attempt to discuss on the article talk page. Discussion on the article talk page is a precondition to mediation.  If the other editors will not discuss with you on the article talk page, it is unlikely that they will participate constructively in mediation, and mediation (either here or at formal mediation is voluntary.  If the other editors won't discuss, and continue to do slow-motion edit-warring via edit summaries, that is a conduct issue.  I agree that we would always rather that they used some sort of mediation or other form of content dispute resolution than have to deal with conduct, but all of the content dispute resolution forums are voluntary, and there is very little if anything that can be done short of blocking for editors who won't discuss.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Bot (or something) gone a bit weird
Why have all the cases from Talk:Amway#FTC in_lead disappeared? I suspect that Robert, when closing that case, might have closed the others by mistake, but the one I was working on still had the potential to go somewhere... Could it be reopened please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehistorian10 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I attempted to fix it, but I'm worried that I might have done it wrong. Can one of you check what I did? The archives were nested weirdly, and there were four archive tops and only three archive bottoms.  KSF  T C 20:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You got it, thanks, KSFT. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Referrals to formal mediation
Since I'm also the Chairperson of the Mediation Committee, I'm very uncomfortable closing cases at DRN for the purpose of referring them to Medcom. If a DRN volunteer sees a case that they think should be closed and referred — and we've had discussions here at the DRN talk page that in addition to especially complex cases that any case with more than 5 or 6 parties probably ought to be referred because they're rarely successful at DRN — please feel free to just go ahead and do it. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Good points. If a case is really entrenched (ie several editors who have been involved in the same contentious issue for months) its good to close and refer to formal meditation. Such case are almost never successful at DRN and a DR attempt may even serve to exacerbate the already tense situation. But as always, use your good judgement and consult with other experienced DRN volunteers if you are unsure of what to do.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 20:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Brian Evans (Singer) page
Hello.

Jacob Rogers at The Wikipedia Foundation requested that I utilize this method to request edits and corrections of the page of singer Brian Evans. While I have attempted in the past to make changes to the page to update his career endeavors of the last two years, the editor "Hell in a bucket" has repeatedly deleted those edits every single time anyone (not Mr. Evans) has attempted to update his page. In fact, even Wikipedia itself correctly added additional information upon our contact with that, only to have Hell in a bucket "undo" that information. This has gone on for over a year now, and it's become a situation that has become borderline harassment. The same sourced information for other items (Las Vegas Sun) has been deleted when updating new entries from that very same source. In fact, "Hell in a bucket" called Robin Leach, one of the foremost entertainment reporters in the world, as "unreliable," while sourcing information from "Patch.com" relating to untrue remarks regarding his mother. Patch.com is apparently considered more of a source (despite not being affiliated with any actual physical newspaper), but Robin Leach of The Las Vegas Sun is "unreliable."

Items we would like to add to Mr. Evans page as editors are as followed, and we will let you be the judge as to whether these items are to be considered reliable. Robin Leach has been an entertainment reporter for more than 50 years.

Singing Career:

2015: Brian Evans filmed the first music video ever to be filmed at The Bates Motel, entitled "Creature." Source: Robin Leach, The Las Vegas Sun and UPI. Link to article: http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/Music/2015/02/24/Brian-Evans-Carrot-Top-shoot-Creature-music-video-at-the-Bates-Motel/5561424803053/ AND http://www.axs.com/at-fenway-singer-brian-evans-brings-out-creature-at-the-bates-motel-66114 AND http://lasvegassun.com/vegasdeluxe/2015/apr/29/mayweather-jr-pacquiao-tickets-pamela-anderson-div/ The comedian Carrot Top co-stars with Evans in the video.

2016: Brian Evans filmed the music video "Here You Come Again," a remake of the Dolly Parton classic. Co-starring in the music video is comedian Paul Rodriguez, William Shatner, Dog The Bounty Hunter, Beth Chapman, and Leland Chapman. Source: http://lasvegassun.com/vegasdeluxe/2016/mar/21/strip-scribbles-caesars-50th-dolly-parton-katy-per/

Inflammatory remarks (previously removed by editors, but then added again by Hell in a bucket):

Under "Personal Life" -

On June 25, 2013 Evans filed a lawsuit against the Hampton, New Hampshire Board of Selectmen for "conspiracy to commit fraud" and "intentional infliction of emotional distress" after the Board voted 3 to 2 against Evans' request to erect a plaque to honor his deceased mother on a town street corner. He sought $10 million in damages.[16] The case was dismissed a month after it was filed. Evans appealed, but could not afford the $455 fee that came with the appeal.[18] The case was thrown out in October 2013.[18]

This statement is untrue. It is poorly sourced, as well. Mr. Evans did not "appeal" the case when it was dismissed. To insinuate Mr. Evans "could not afford the $455 fee" is inflammatory and absolutely untrue. When we emailed Wikipedia Foundation, they agreed, and this remark was deleted for exactly this reason. Hell in a bucket put it up moments later. He apparently has a pager linked to Mr. Evans Wikipedia page. A lawsuit was never filed for "Conspiracy to Commit Fraud," in ANY court records.

Under "Politics," Hell in a bucket removed items relevant to why Mr. Evans ran for the U.S. Senate. When Honolulu Magazine did an article, it was deleted when added to Mr. Evans Wikipedia page, removing all explanation for why he ran, to speak of his mother's untimely passing. Source: http://www.honolulumagazine.com/Honolulu-Magazine/October-2014/How-a-Las-Vegas-Crooner-Won-Enough-Votes-to-Help-Keep-Hawaiis-US-Senate-Race-a-Nail-Biter/ (Mr. Evans ran to bring attention to poor hospital care and admits in the article that he never intended to win. However "Hell in a bucket" attempts to frame this "run for office" as though Mr. Evans were just any other candidate and only received 2% of the vote. Mr. Evans, following his mother's death, began a campaign to receive Proclamations for "Sleep Apnea Awareness" by every governor in the country since that happened to her. Dozens of governors have complied. Source: http://www.easybreathe.com/blog/role-sleep-apnea-hawaiis-senate-race/ AND http://www.ppahs.org/2013/06/womans-death-after-knee-surgery-calls-attention-to-need-for-better-monitoring/ Sadly, Hell in a bucket simply attempts to frame Mr. Evans as "a nut" in his Wikipedia page. If you review the various conversations between someone attempting to edit the page and "Hell in a bucket," "Hell in a bucket" actually taunts the editor, and disregards all of the properly sourced information that has been attempted, even by other Wikipedia editors, by deleting them without good cause.

Under: Writing career

Mr. Evans released three novels in the past two years. None have been allowed on his Wikipedia page. The San Francisco Book Review gave Evans first novel ("Horrorscope" in 2014 "five stars." Hell in a bucket deleted it. See: http://citybookreview.com/horrorscope/ His second book "The Funny Robbers" received five stars as well. Again, this properly sourced information was deleted. "The Funny Robbers" received 4 1/2 stars. It was released in 2015. It was also deleted by Hell in a bucket. No other editor has deleted links that have attempted to be edited onto the Brian Evans Wikipedia page other than this one editor. Source for "The Funny Robbers" - http://manhattanbookreview.com/book-reviews/the-funny-robbers/ The actions of Hell in a bucket are very well abusive, and Mr. Evans is not the only individual that has been on the receiving end of his behavior as an editor on the page. With an almost an emperor-like attitude on the internet, he is framing Mr. Evans legacy as he sees fit. The taunting remarks when Mr. Evans has indeed attempted to "reach out" to this editor has fallen by the wayside. It does no good.

In closing, Brian Evans has released three books and filmed two music videos since his mother passed. Those entries are deleted (at one point Hell in a bucket called "Creature" a mere "tidbit," despite it being the first time Universal Studios has ever allowed any artist ever to film a music video. He then makes it appear Mr. Evans just "ran for the U.S. Senate" despite his reasoning, well established and literally in the same articles sourced for his run. The public has a right to know why he ran. Academy Award winner Jeff Bridges, just this past January, joined Evans in his fight to bring attention to Sleep Apnea (See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aFVy4pfdZE) and Oscar winner Tom Hanks introduces his mothers website: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfwX7HvAmG4 (Close to 2 million have been to her website, helenbousquet.com, because of Mr. Hanks introduction). None of this, despite many sources, are deemed information relevant by "Hell in a bucket."

It's truly disturbing the time and attention that Hell in a bucket has put into making Brian Evans appear as a lunatic who simply sues for everyone, framing the story as Hell in a bucket sees fit. The above is just a mere example.

Please advise. While I am NOT Brian Evans, I do work with Mr. Evans as his personal manager. What I am seeking is a fair and balanced page for my client, and not one that is framing his legacy in a way that is simply not true.

MarkABiltz (talk) 06:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)Mark Biltz
 * First, I seriously doubt that you have correctly understood the advice by any employee at the WMF to file this particular posting to this particular web page. This web page is for talking about how the Dispute Resolution  Noticeboard works.  Your post may be either a request for changes to an article, or a request for Dispute Resolution.  (It is also a wall of text.)  I see that you have also posted to Talk: Brian Evans (singer).  If discussion there is unsuccessful, you can reasonably file here.  Second, since you acknowledge that you are his manager, you are a paid editor, and must read the conflict of interest policy and The Paid Editing Policy and make an appropriate disclosure.  If you are to post at DRN itself, I would caution you to comment on conduct, not contributors.  Your post mixed content issues and conduct issues.  You should either purpose content resolution (at the talk page, or at DRN), or purpose conduct resolution.  I hope that you do the latter, but, if so, do not mix content issues with your complaints about an editor's behavior.  Also, you might ask Jacob Rogers to clarify his advice.  Robert McClenon (talk) 07:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Barony of Blackhall
For background, a dispute request concerning the Barony of Blackhall was filed on 12 March 2016. I declined it because there had been no talk page discussion. Today, User:Endidro, one of the parties to the case, requested assistance at my talk page, and said that they would be coming back to WP:DRN. In looking at it, I saw that they had repeatedly referred to themselves as "we" and to "our" case and had continued to refer that way after being challenged, and asked whether they had a conflict of interest. A thread was filed at WP:ANI by another editor, and Endidro made the statement that they represented four editors. After some discussion, the committee editor was blocked as a shared editor. Each of the editors was told to create their own account. It seems that there either is or was a real-world contest as to inheritance of the ancient title of Baron of Blackwell and its lands. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

So: It is likely that, after the ANI thread is resolved, a new thread will be filed here concerning the present-day dispute over this ancient title and its lands. I will not be accepting the case for moderated discussion because I am now involved. Any moderator should check whether all of the proper conflict of interest and WP:Paid editing disclosures have been made. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Moderator Needed
We need a moderator for the Cryonics dispute. I shouldn't moderate it because one of the parties had an issue with my previous moderation of a different case. We need to decide whether to accept the Seth Rollins case, which is being filed by unregistered editors, where the registered editors have seen the filing although they weren't notified, and have commented but have not said whether they will discuss. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I would have stepped in to assist, but I'm going link dark in a few days and won't be able to devote the attention needed to it. Hasteur (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Take the case. I believe in second chances. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Seth Rollins needs a moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Needed
Volunteers are needed at a few cases, especially at Ooty. If you are a vounteer and can take on a case, please take on a case. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Late Responding Party
A party to the cryonics dispute made a statement on 5 April, basically disagreeing with most of where I thought that we were getting agreement. They hadn't said anything after 29 March, when I asked for parties to check every 48 hours, and when the next week appears to be drifting toward agreement. Since another party has now taken issue with linking to the letter, it does appear that discussion is not resolved and that an RFC will be necessary. However, do other editors agree that my conclusion that one party had withdrawn from the discussion by saying nothing was a reasonable assumption? (It probably doesn't affect the final result, which will be an RFC.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That'll probably be me as said party, sorry for the delay. As one of the parties, I don't think you've behaved unreasonably FWIW - David Gerard (talk) 08:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. However, I would say that jumping in after a week of non-participation and not saying what you object to was non-helpful and served only to distract and annoy.  Comments?  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'd tend to agree with this. I'd have similar thoughts for the second editor (and admin) who just did a similar thing. -- Nome77 (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * And yet you were on the verge of formulating a gentleman's agreement to violate Wikipedia content policies, which is rather outside the ambit of this board. (And I did indeed detail my objections; if you really didn't notice, that doesn't augur well either.) As such, I can't apologise for interrupting said process - David Gerard (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

SageTea
By the way, this closed case may be confusing, but I will try to explain. The filing party is trying to get a conflict of interest draft about their company accepted via AFC, and has been repeatedly declined. It is technically true that there has been no discussion on the draft talk page, because AFC discussion takes place via templates in the draft itself that are eventually removed when the draft is accepted into mainspace. The real problems are, first, that DRN is meant for disputes about the content of articles, not for disputes about whether articles should exist. Second, there already is a mechanism for such discussions, which is the AFC process. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Volunteers Needed
There are three cases waiting for volunteer moderators. Can a mass mailing be sent? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't want DRN to get a reputation as a place where content disputes go to die for lack of a moderator (which will either cause filing parties to go to ANI, and then reasonably argue that they shouldn't be asked to seek dispute resolution, since it doesn't work, or to encourage parties to edit-war, since dispute resolution doesn't work). Robert McClenon (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

If you think it would be a good idea, I can moderate a case starting later today. KSF T C 12:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Two New Questions for FAQ
I would suggest that two new questions be added to the FAQ, reflecting questions that have been asked that are contrary to dispute resolution policy but should be restated. Here they are.

Q12. I don't want to waste time discussing with the other editor. I would like to start mediation immediately. Can that be done?

A. No. Discussion on the article talk page is a precondition to discussion in any other dispute resolution process. Often discussion on the talk page resolves the dispute. It must at least be tried. (Assuming that it won't help is a failure to assume good faith.)

Q13. I don't want to engage in lengthy discussion. I would like the moderator to act as an impartial decision-maker. Why can't the moderator just decide the dispute?

A. In either informal dispute resolution at this noticeboard or formal mediation at the Mediation Committee, the mediator is not a decision-maker, but, as the title implies, a mediator. Other editors might not agree with the judgment of the moderator or mediator. The purpose of this noticeboard is to facilitate discussion, not to decide the dispute unilaterally. If you want binding resolution of a content dispute, you can file a Request for Comments, which is decided by the community.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In the absence of comments, I will be bold and make the additions. If there is objection, someone can revert and we can discuss.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Lists of State Leaders
Can a single case be opened that covers multiple articles? It appears that this case involves multiple articles. I don't see anything in the procedures for this noticeboard that either says that such a case is permitted or that such a case is not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Robert - is it a behavioral issue or content issue, and if the latter are they all on the same topic? If there's a different dispute for each topic, I would suggest tackling them one at a time. The result of one may help eliminate issues with the others.  If it's behavioral involving the same parties and same topic then I see no reason not to open a single case that covers all of it. Atsme 📞📧 05:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a content issue, namely, whether to list acting heads of state. Of course the content issue is different for each year, but the underlying issue is the same, whether to list acting heads of state (as well as regular heads of state).  By the way, discussion is starting up.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I can try to help with this case if you need, whichever way you decide to run it. Cheers Faendalimas  talk 16:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It has a moderator. Thank you.  It would be appreciated if you can help with another case.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * sorry I noticed that myself after I wrote it. I have to travel in 2 days, once I arrive in USA I will have a week to myself and will take a case during that time. Cheers Faendalimas  talk 22:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Palace of the Shirvanshahs
I am willing to take on this one, however, I need to ask one thing. I am traveling from Brazil to USA (Miami) on Sunday night, obviously an 8 hour flight, but will probably be somewhat offline for most of Monday (US EST) because of travelling etc also. So I can work with it till Sunday and then will be fine from Monday evening. I am a little concerned about the gap in case it gets heated up. So should I wait? or are people ok with that. Open to advice on this. Cheers Faendalimas  talk 22:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I closed that case for lack of recent discussion. But in general so long as all the primary disputants have weighed in on a case (taking a case where one or more primary disputants have not agreed to participate runs the risk of those who choose to not participate sabotaging any result worked out here; it's better in that case to close the case as futile and suggest RFC), there's no reason to not take it and tell them you're going to be offline for a couple of days, probably also asking them to hold off on any additional comments until you're back. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 03:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Articles for Creation disputes
Robert McClenon closed a case earlier today because DRN shouldn't apply to cases where the author of a draft article has received one or more "Submission declined's". I want to second that idea and say this about it. Filers of such DRN cases want to characterize it as a dispute between them and the reviewers. But we don't take cases where there is an alternate process with a dispute resolution process built in. And there is such a process at AfD AFC, though it may not be obvious: There's nothing preventing a draft article's creator — Robert please correct me here if I'm wrong, since you work at AfD — from merely ignoring the "submission declined" and moving the article into mainspace if they disagree with the reviewer. If they do, then the reviewer or any other editor may either nominate it for deletion if it's not notable or savagely edit it to remove improper or insufficient text, but that's the risk that they take and that risk constitutes, in effect, a dispute resolution process over the submission declined issue. Does anyone agree or disagree? Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 03:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC) Fixing my oops. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is true that you can move a declined AFC submission into mainspace. That's not very different from reverting someone who reverted you, though. It isn't dispute resolution itself, but it turns the issue into one that needs to be discussed on the talk page, though, which can then be brought here or to AFD to get consensus. If you're planning to ignore your submission being declined anyway, you shouldn't use AFC and should instead just create the article directly. If you disagree with a reviewer's reasons for declining a submission, you can discuss that on a talk page too. If you can't come to an agreement, I agree that it would be better to move the submission to mainspace and go through normal processes to delete it, rather than come here--DRN isn't AFD. KSF  T C 14:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments on AFC
I would be interested in a comment by an experienced DRN volunteer who is not also an AFC volunteer. I will note in passing that User:TransporterMan made a typo in referring to AFD and means to refer to AFC. Articles for Creation is the process for reviewing draft articles, not yet in mainspace. There are actually three ways to discuss an AFC decline. The first is to resubmit the draft, hopefully but not necessarily with improvements. (Resubmitting the draft without improvement is occasionally done in the hope of getting an easier reviewer. If it is done too many times with no improvements or no real improvement, it may be viewed as tendentious editing, and the draft may be nominated for Miscellany for Deletion, or the editor may even be warned that they may be blocked.)  The author may make comments in AFC that address the decline. So that is the first way to discuss the decline. The second way to discuss the decline is one that is usually mentioned in the AFC decline notice, and that is to go to the Teahouse to request comments by experienced editors. The Teahouse is specifically intended for advice to new editors. (This is why it co-exists with the Help Desk.) Often the other editors will agree with the decline, but sometimes they will propose the addition of independent reliable sources, or will otherwise make suggestions for improvement of the draft. Also, I have not seen this happen, but one of the editors at the Teahouse may actually accept the draft (move it into mainspace). So that is a second way to discuss the AFC decline. The third way, as TransporterMan says, is that the author may move the draft into article space. That, as noted, is likely to start a deletion discussion, because if one reviewer thinks that the draft isn't ready for article space, others may think that it isn't ready for article space, and others may think that it is. So there are three methods to address a decline, which means that there is no need for this forum. I disagree with KSFT in thinking that moving the draft to mainspace is the best approach. I think that discussing informally at the Teahouse is the best approach (and DRN, although structured, is also informal). I will point out that, although some editors find WP:AFC to be a painful process, because it involves a lot of learning, WP:AFD is a more painful process. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't phrase my comment well. I agree with you. I meant that you shouldn't come here immediately if you disagree with a submission being declined. KSF  T C 14:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with what you said. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * With that clarification from Robert — thanks, Robert — I'll also add this: There can be no more dispute between a draft author and a reviewer than there can be a dispute between an editor and someone who gives a Third Opinion: Both the AfC reviewer and the 3O-giver are doing nothing more than giving advice which the editor can take or reject, it's up to them. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That's my viewpoint and your viewpoint.  It also ought to be the viewpoint of an uninvolved draft author.  However, too often the draft author has a conflict of interest and really sees the reviewer as being against them.  For that matter, in the disputes that we do accept here at DRN, it should be and almost always is only a content dispute and not a matter of a special interest.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator may be slow to respond
I'm going to be traveling internationally from May 5, 2016 (a week from next Thursday), through June 20, 2016, and may be a bit slow to respond during that time due to time in transit or accommodations which have poor or no Internet access. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Anarchism sidebar
Hello, Could someone please clarify what is meant by "the filing party has not listed any of the other parties" and what could be done to correct this? Thank you. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There were other users involved in the dispute, but you didn't list them in the case when you opened it. KSF  T C 02:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. Can you clarify?  There was one other editor involved and I listed them. I'm not sure what I did wrong. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like there are several more editors who contributed to this discussion. I think that's the one that the case is about. I see you filed it again, this time listing those people. Another volunteer has accepted the case. Once everyone involved in the dispute agrees to participate, the case can be opened. KSF  T C 12:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. What would happen if not everyone involved in the dispute agrees to participate? 24.197.253.43 (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, is this seriously the dispute resolution process? Has Wikipedia never had a conflict before? 24.197.253.43 (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a non-binding process intended to help disputants find a path forward. I'm sorry that you appear to have found it unsatisfactory. There are other options for dispute resolution which you are welcome to pursue. DonIago (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Was the unregistered editor participating in the process at all? If they were, they should be logged in when they complain.  If not, they are just making a snarky outside comment.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (threat of genocide) close
The dispute resolution was closed as failed by Robert McClenon. This happened while the last 12 hours before the close 3 participants of 4 were actively involved in the moving forward dispute and there was an attempt to get the cooperation from the fifth and last involved editor that has not responded yet. Whatever the reasons of the volunteer for closing the case were, I would like to ask any of the other DRN volunteers to take the case and reopen it. Yagasi (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I echo this request and, despite the clear risk of annoying the mods, I must note that each of Robert McClenon's demands was painstakingly and literally complied with. In particular the so-called "wall of text"—complained of as the final straw—was posted in direct compliance with Robert's demand that proposed text be posted "in one paragraph".
 * Additional comments were necessary because he drastically mischaracterized our previous statements, and his own misstatements, in a manner that called for direct response. That is, he incorrectly stated we had failed to comply, when in fact we had done exactly what he asked.  If a mod changes his mind, or clearly fails to state what is required, that's on the mod, not the participants.  With all due appreciation for volunteer work, I think a little more care is required; remember that we're volunteers, too.
 * Perhaps my collateral comments could have been posted in the "discussion" section that preceded the First Statements, but I was, again, attempting to comply with the rather formalistic demand that everything be said "in one paragraph" in order to avoid immediate closure of the case. Can we just move those comments about Robert's misstatements to the "discussion" session?  Then the remainder of my post would be nothing but the proposed text—which I was commanded to repost for the 3rd time despite having clearly indicated it in prior posts.
 * This is not exactly a subtle question of WP policy, either. The disputed issues are quite clear and WP policy quite clearly speaks directly to those issues.  Both sides are ready to talk.  Let's talk. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will will address two audiences. The first is the parties to the discussion.  The second is other volunteers, but I will address them out of order.  Second, do the other volunteers think that I was too quick to fail the case after asking my questions and getting the answers that I did?  First, my questions did not change.  I see subtle, but not major, changes in the wordings, but I always asked what should be included and excluded.  On the first two statements, I was given lengthy (in my view) argumentative statements about Wikipedia policy on fringe.  The third time, the answer was a wall of text provided options as to what would have been acceptable.  I probably would have parsed the wall of text on round one.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't you, but the dispute. The dispute was interrupted when it became particularly fruitful and thus it was harmed. I can't agree with the speculation the dispute would fail. Yagasi (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that the third statement by the filing editor, while not concise, was a basis for moving forward? If so, then maybe another volunteer editor here can re-open the case.  I have changed the Do Not Archive parameter so that the case will not be archived for more than a week (and it can be further extended if a new moderator takes over).  Alternatively, this may be a case that will benefit better from an even more experienced mediator at the Mediation Comittee.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the goal of Wikipedia is to create a well-written, reliable encyclopedia like the Encyclopædia Britannica, I hope another volunteer will re-open the dispute. Should this be the case, the misuse of the fringe policy and other related issues would be disputed in this forum. Yagasi (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In dispute resolution, I sometimes see deeply invested and dug in positions. Dispute resolution is difficult to get resolution then.  There appears to be a deeply invested position by the filing party, even though I don't entirely know what it is.  (I can see that it may have something to do with whether Iran intends to commit genocide in Israel.)  Both parties may be read to talk, but are they ready to engage in talking, or is a considerable amount of pre-mediation needed to break down the barriers to useful talking?  I don't know if a nearly perfect moderator could have gotten resolution in the timeline of seven to fourteen days for this noticeboard.  Also, there are few nearly perfect moderators here.  If you want a more experienced nearly perfect moderator, go to Requests for Formal Mediation, where mediation can go on for weeks to try to break down barriers to communication, dug in positions, and other matters.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * On the one hand, if the parties really both want to talk, and another moderator is willing to try, this case can be re-opened here. On the other hand, at this point, I think that if both parties really are ready to talk, they need an even more experienced mediator, from the mediation committee.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Dug-in positions"?? Robert McClenon, did something prevent you from reading the proposed text and sources I identified 12 days ago?  Was there something that forced you to spend this whole weekend quibbling with me about whether I had identified the text and sources?  And as of now, have you still not read them?  How can discussion move forward if you refuse to read text and sources that are identified—and yet claim that nothing has been brought to your attention and cite that as a reason to close?  Do you think that expecting you to read the proposed article content and source material amounts to demanding "perfection", as you sarcastically suggest? Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

To the 73 DRN volunteers who have not, for now, accepted the mediation. Before the mediation was interrupted I had stated what should be included in the article and why should it be done. As a result I was blamed for referencing policies and guidelines and for "containing nothing about the text" despite the fact that my text was clearly linked and based on reliable sources. Moreover, my question — why should views of a few Wikipedia editors be preferable over the opinion of prominent legal experts (David B. Rivkin, Lee A. Casey, Louis René Beres, Alan Dershowitz, Irwin Cotler...) —was ignored and left without any answer. Once I was very surprised at Jimmy Wales saying: "It often happens that the seventeenth year old is right and the professor is wrong" But now I begin to understand how this can happen. My impression is that genocide issues are not the business of the majority of Wikipedians, however I ask somebody of you (other than the former moderator) to respond. Yagasi (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

thank you for volunteering at DRN. Having no details about your former activities at this forum, I would like to ask you whether you have a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (PG). What about the following PG already mentioned in this dispute: WP:FRINGE, WP:Neutral point of view, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS? Yagasi (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I am also active on AFD and FT/N, which require many of those guideines and I have a solid grasp on the rules in general. I read over the rules many times before starting to edit on Wikipedia.WP:FRINGE in particular is a guideline in which I know a lot about. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I posted renewed notifications to NPguy, Neutrality, and Vesuvius_Dogg. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Surface_Book
I don't quiet understand why my filing kept being closed. There are some reasons provided, but I'm not sure they are all fully applicable.

1. First, the filing party has not notified the other (unregistered) editor of this filing.
 * Since there is no personal page of the unregistered editor with a dynamic IP which constantly updates, I notified him twice on the corresponding talk page (Talk:Surface_Book) since he occasionally took a look at it in the not so distant past:

"I filed for a dispute resolution and put the last known IP of other editor as the second party in this dispute. Not sure if it'll make any sense and if he'll get any notification though, especially it's obvious that he's got a dynamic IP."

- TranslucentCloud (talk) 10:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

"I have filed a formal dispute resolution request here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Surface_Book."

- TranslucentCloud (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Did I have done this wrong? If so, what is the proper way?

2. ''Second, more importantly, this request still has not had adequate discussion at the talk page. There has been discussion, but it was brief, and the last comments were more than two weeks ago, so there has been no recent discussion.''
 * There was a lengthy discussion with at least 18 replies from all involved parties (not counting third opinion request) which proved that we can't agree on the issue. The unregistered editor apparently don't want to cooperate in a civilized way, and to provide a viable rationale for his actions, preferring to resort to the edit warring. Edit wars are prohibited here on Wikipedia, but for some reason it is more difficult to settle the case officially, through this formal dispute resolution, and I really surprised that my filing was canceled twice, with the obscure reasons.
 * As for the comment, that 'there has been no recent discussion', I can argue, that I personally have no any technical means of communicating with strangers on the Internet knowing only their dynamic IP address, which constantly changes. There are my posts without replies on the Talk:Surface_Book, but apparently the other party doesn't interested in participating in the discussion any further. I have option to resume the edit warring in hope the unregistered editor will reveal himself one more time, but I believe this case should be resolved via the formal dispute resolution, not the edit warring. TranslucentCloud (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

User:TranslucentCloud -
 * I understand that you are frustrated, and would like to comment; I hope that my comments are helpful, although they or may not be. I welcome the comments of other experienced volunteers.  I don't see any question about the propriety of my second decline of your request.  You didn't make any effort in May to resume discussion on the talk page.  So we will talk about the April decline.  As the rules of DRN are written, we do not have an exception that permits notice to an IP address via the article talk page.  It must be made to the user talk page of the IP address.  I am aware that IP addresses change.  An editor who chooses to use an IP address is expected to check on previous IP addresses.  There is no exception about notice.  The shifting of IP addresses is one of the reasons that I, and other DRN volunteers, have said that dispute resolution with unregistered editors is difficult, and why we strongly encourage them to register.  (I personally would prefer to end the right of unregistered editors to edit, but that happened long ago.)  To get back to the current situation, you haven't tried to resume discussion on the article talk page, or to resume editing the article.  It may be that, like some editors, you are going so far out of your way to avoid edit-warring that you are making yourself unable to edit.  If so, I will advise you that no administrator will think that you are edit-warring if you resume editing.  Either your edits will stand, or they will be reverted.  If they stand, good.  If not, and they are reverted, you can discuss, and restore your edits one more time.  Then you can either request dispute resolution here a third time, after really providing proper notice, or you can request semi-protection of the article.  Semi-protection of the article is a reasonable short-term measure when unregistered editors edit or revert and do not discuss.  Yet another option is a Request for Comments.  So your choices then, depending on the conduct of the unregistered editors, are either a completely proper request for discussion, or semi-protection, or a Request for Comments, or a combination of the three.  (You can request semi-protection and request DRN or file an RFC.  You cannot request DRN while an RFC is running.)  I hope that this clarifies matters.    Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't feel like I want to WP:BEBOLD and resume editing the section in question, since I feel it may result in another revert and I thus only loose time. I'm not sure the unregistered editor will be more cooperative this time, willing to explain his actions, so I better ask for a formal dispute resolution for the third time.


 * If I'll notify the unregistered editor on the talk page of his last known IP address, will my filing be allowed to be resolved? We all know for sure it will not get him notified, but the rules are rules. TranslucentCloud (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, just leaving another notice at the last known IP address, without new discussion, will not get your case accepted, at least not by me, with no recent discussion. There has been no discussion on the article talk page in more than two weeks.  Try discussing on the article talk page.  You say that you don't want to lose time.  Lose time for what?  In Wikipedia, there is no deadline.  You say that you are not sure that the unregistered editor will be more cooperative this time.  In that case, why do you think that formal dispute resolution will help?  Dispute resolution is voluntary.  If the unregistered editor doesn't respond to discussion at the talk page, there is no reason to think that they will respond to discussion here.  I don't mean to be discouraging, but you seem to be thinking that we can do the work for you when you don't want to do the work.  At a minimum, try to engage in discussion again.  I would strongly recommend going ahead and editing the article, among other things to provide a better indication of what the controversy is about, but, at the very least, you need to resume discussion on the article talk page.  At least, that is what I think.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Notice to Unregistered Editors
This is a question to other volunteers. At present we require that every editor be notified of the request here. As we can see above, an editor thought that, because IP addresses shift, notice at the article talk page could take that place for unregistered editors. As I understand presently, it can't. Should the preconditions be changed so that notice of this request on the article talk page is sufficient for unregistered editors? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would rather see that added as an additional precondition that applies regardless of the state of the involved editors, rather than supercede the existing one. If you care enough to come here with a dispute, leaving one additional notice doesn't, to me, seem an unreasonable burden. DonIago (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, or maybe User:Doniago missed my point. We already have a precondition to give notice to the editors.  The question was whether to make an exception that it is not necessary to give notice to unregistered editors, to make it possible to notify them only via the article talk page.  The filing party of a dispute that I declined had not notified an unregistered editor on their talk page because of the shifting nature of unregistered editors.  In this case, the issue was apparently only with that one unregistered editor.  So the question is:  Should an exception be made to the notice requirement for unregistered editors?  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That was what I was addressing; I don't think leaving a notice at the article Talk page should supersede any requirement to notify IPs at their Talk pages. Some IPs shift, others do not, and I don't see why we should make an assumption either way in a case where the notification process requires minimal effort in any case. DonIago (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Descriptive term
I am going to use dispute resolution to resolve the issue I posted on Help Desk. My question for you is will reliable sources be required to support claims? If this does not happen, then there will not be a resolution. Mitchumch (talk) 04:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Mitchumch - I don't know exactly what the question is. I can answer that reliable sources are needed to support any factual claim, but I don't think that is your question.  Since I don't know exactly what the issue is, I don't know if it is appropriate to discuss on the DRN board.  Please explain to me in more detail either at my talk page or at the Help Desk, since you originally asked there.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Moderator Needed
We need a moderator for the Jafee dispute. I would moderate it, but I already became involved in a different way and would prefer that someone else moderate it. Is a call for volunteers needed? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society case
I closed this case because, as stated, it is primarily a conflict of interest claim. This noticeboard only addresses content issues. Do any other volunteers care to comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)