Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 26

R2-45 case
The R2-45 case was apparently manually filed. It had none of the formatting or fields that are created by the template and then parsed by the maintenance bot. In the past, manually filed cases have caused the bot to break and have had to be manually removed, so I deleted the case. I also advised the filing party that it was stated primarily as a conduct dispute, since he stated that other editors were engaging in article ownership, and that conduct disputes involving areas that are under ArbCom discretionary sanctions are best dealt with at Arbitration Enforcement. R2-45 is a controversial subject area associated with Scientology. (To be sure, a controversial subject area associated with Scientology and a subject area associated with Scientology are synonymous.) Do any other volunteers have any comments? Do we need clearer instructions that cases should not be filed manually? It has only very rarely been necessary to delete manually filed cases because very few cases have been manually filed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The "r2-45" article's history shows that Scientology has been trying to deny what their founder said in tape recorded audio speeches, looks like the recordings were duplicated and sold to followers, so Scientology's current complaint that Hubbard did not say what he said and that Scientology's own documents do not say what they say looks to have been debunked endlessly on that page, to the point where protection has been required.
 * If the Scientology follower who is making the complaint about Hubbard some how joking about what he said and wrote would like to open an RFC and suggest updates to the article which provides references showing that Hubbard was joking, he or she may do so. Just looking at the article itself, I see that it has undergone extensive updates to ensure that it is factual with verified citations so I don't see anything that is actually in dispute. BiologistBabe (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Notice of abandonment of DRN Clerk bot account
I am retiring from wikipedia. The stress, duplicious nature of people, the refusal of admins to follow the basic concepts they agreed to, and other issues have made me decide to retire.

The following actions need to be taken over:
 * 1) DRN Clerk bot running and maintenance

I am willing to show how to run it (or let someone else run/manage it) but I am done with wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I've emailed Hasteur with an procedural question. You're the only person who I know for certain probably has the skills to take this over at this point. Could you perhaps take it on until we find a regular replacement?  Any other candidates please apply here. Best regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have much experience with bots on Wikipedia. Does Hasteur host it or just maintain it? KSF  T C 21:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

"electronic harassment" article needs assistance.
There has been a long running debate as to whether electronic harassment is real or delusional. The definitive cited source on the subject would seem to be "Mind Games" by the Washington Post: Mind Games which describes both sides of the controversy and leaves it an open question. That is how the Wikipedia article should also be, surely? Yet, there are always editors in abundance who want to negate the controversy and define EH as evidence of a delusion. This has come to a focus recently for me in an attempt to correct this one-sided editing. My edit was quickly reverted and I am outnumbered but sure that they are in the wrong. We have discussed the issue in the Talk page for many months now and still neither side is giving way. The edit in question:[|psychiatric opinion assumed to be fact]Jed Stuart (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you wish to request moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard about the article content? If so, you may file a request at the project page.  There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page.  At the same time, dispute resolution is voluntary, so that the other editor or editors will need to agree to discussion.  You may file a request and notify the other parties.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I did as directed, started the dispute resolution process, and notified the main other party in the dispute on the articles Talk page. I have returned to the dispute after 3 days and find that a moderator has volunteered, there has been brief discussion only along the lines of the other side of the dispute and the dispute closed, and it is difficult for me to read it even. This is a very controversial article and any dispute needs to proceed slowly and carefully, I would suggest. To me that means that both parties initially agreeing on the moderator. I don't agree on the one that very quickly showed up. Is there a list of moderators available. It seems like it might be a difficult thing to achieve, agreement on a moderator. But without that is their any point?Jed Stuart (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , I have quoted you and replied to this on your talk page, as my response doesn't address the question you asked here. However, I would advise you to read that, first. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  12:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Explanation of Procedures
User:Jed Stuart has some questions that I will try to answer. I agree that this is a very controversial article; however, every article that we discuss is controversial, because it wouldn't come here it it weren't controversial. He asks about whether there is a procedure for selection of a moderator. The answer is that we generally have a shortage of available moderators, and this noticeboard is used for relatively short discussions. It wouldn't be consistent with our objective to get topics discussed in one to two weeks to first discuss the selection of a moderator. A moderator volunteers to take the case, and the case moves forward. Waiting for three days isn't the way this noticeboard works. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC) If you want a longer, more deliberate discussion, which might be appropriate in this case, I would suggest that you might request formal mediation. Mediation cases sometimes run for a few months. You are welcome to request formal mediation at this point. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC) If you don't want to request formal mediation, or if there isn't agreement to formal mediation, the next step for a content dispute would be a Request for Comments. Disruptive editing can be reported at WP:ANI, but we hope that this issue doesn't have to go to ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification and guidance. I will go to the formal mediation process if I can't get the other side in this to stop misrepresenting my position and threatening me with sanctions to gag me.Jed Stuart (talk) 02:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, I followed through the diatribe reading as much as possible, and I think User:Jed Stuart is correct in that "the article should be put in terms of it being an open question", as you wrote on the Talk Page, which I can't edit because I just registered my account and 4 days need to pass so that I can partecipate (it is semi-protected). I just wanted to let you know that there's this new politician believing in the Targeted Individuals view. She set up this campaign website full of information on Electronic harassment. Particularly, I cared to make you aware that she has a page dedicated to videos on that website, and on the very first video, the Chairman of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to which Targeted Individuals appealed in recent years, comments on CNN that "We can't know whether this things are still happening today", which confirms yours and the Washington Post article thesis. This looks more than a reliable source. Why not consider Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard by the way? Good Luck! BroughtToYouByMolly (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the lead, and I will present my case to the NPOV noticeboard.Jed Stuart (talk) 06:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you appreciate the idea. After all I did read on the Talk page and the article page including their history, the sources picked to represent the topic as well as those sources left out, I think the article should be re-written somehow on the line of this scheme:
 * Electronic harassment is a conspiracy theory with different interpretations.... etc.
 * Claims of Electronic harassment
 * All that Targeted Individuals claim to be experiencing plus their view such as continous mentions of Mkultra, Cointelpro, patents of technologies capable of producing the "degrading" health effects claimed
 * Leading Psychiatric view
 * Decribe the psychiatrists' view about internet communities about mind-control, which have been studied and the conclusion is that the accounts involved in those communities show the same traits of delusions and mental illnesses..
 * Governments Commissioned Studies
 * Chairman of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues stating on CNN "We don't know whether this things are still happening today" after targeted individuals appealed to her Presidential commission. Also European Parliament commissioned study "Crowd Control Technologies (An appraisal of technologies for political control)" reporting "research into individual mind control", as well as mentioning past reasearch into mind control programs, and recent alleged significant breakthroughs revealed by Begich and Roderick "in the ability of military high frequency electromagnetic technologies to manipulate human behaviour".
 * Political view
 * Dennis Kucinich, Jim Guest, Massie Munroe, Dr.Nick Begich, Vladimir Putin, etc..
 * Minority/Non-mainstream views
 * Dr. Carole Smith, Dr. John Hall, Dr. Rauni Kilde, ex US Intelligence agents Julianne Mckinney and Dr. Robert Duncan, etc
 * Good Luck again! BroughtToYouByMolly (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * That seems like a reasonable structure. It would be a major battle to get those minority views into the picture though. They are well respected people nevertheless. Getting them interviewed by officially sanctioned mainstream media might be easier. Except for Rauni Kilde who is now dead. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. The point with the last section titled "Minority/Non.mainstream views" is to give comprehensiveness to the article, without infringing any policy or guideline, since they would be rightfully given credit in terms of, indeed, minority/non-mainstream views. I did read countless articles reporting non-mainstream views which still respect the WP:FRINGE guideline, because the guideline is about reporting also minority views yet establishing the relation between majority and minority viewpoint, it is not about exclude the minority views. Thus I believe it would be no different in this case in my opinion. Those doctors are respectable sources.. they didn't just come out of a crowd at a baseball stadium shouting their views. Instead they researched and studied the issue as either physicians or ex US Intelligence agents. But I understand consensus is very difficult when it comes to shove anything that gives even the slightest mention of credibility to the claims of EH. BroughtToYouByMolly (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Dubious volunteer add
Should this be summarily removed? The editor in question not only added themselves improperly, but the information they added appears dubious and at the time I'm writing this they've edited fewer than 10 times, and most of those edits were to the Volunteer page. I don't think they're ready to be a volunteer here anytime soon. DonIago (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Looks like this was addressed by another editor. As I agree with the change, I guess there's nothing to see here. DonIago (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (threat of genocide) second close
When I checked in I saw the ThePlatypusofDoom's demand to shorten the upgraded text and his closing of the case 4 hours later. You were absolutely right while rejecting the demand: we must not lose our self-respect even if the opinion of prominent lawyers is announced fringe or nonsignificant by Wikipedia law expert or its moderator that made a lot of mistakes. Yagasi (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As the moderator noted in closing, the next step in dispute resolution is recommended to be formal mediation. Are the editors willing to go to formal mediation? This doesn't appear to be a conduct dispute.  Due to the complexity of the issues, it probably is not well suited to being resolved by a Request for Comments.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As a general matter I'm willing, but as a practical matter I wonder what there is left to discuss? As we left things, I had demanded somebody come forward with any policy language whatsoever which would require an already extremely brief and carefully qualified summary of a POV—a good portion of which was already devoted to giving a rebuttal to the view—to be shortened even further.  After nearly 9 months and no small amount of begging to be given a policy citation to work with, that doesn't seem a lot to ask.  The response, essentially, was No, we don't want to do that, discussion closed. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Can the issue be stated clearly and concisely? If the issue can be stated concisely, an alternate next step would be a Request for Comments.  Requests for Comments work very well if the issue can be stated concisely.  (If not, not.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue was already discussed on NPOV noticeboard. I do not think Request for Comments will add something new to the responses received on the noticeboard.
 * The primary issue at the formal mediation should be as follows: Is the text proposed at the end of the informal mediation (based on the 4 balanced reliable sources) appropriate to include within the context of Wikipedia policies. Additional issue at the mediation may be as follows: Would the removing of the proposed text cause double standard approach to the article's content? Yagasi (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. In my personal opinion, RFCs bring certain problems of systemic bias, as I believe was already demonstrated at the NPOV noticeboard.  Ask any question of the form "should unpopular view X be included in article Y?" and you're liable to get dozens of unsupported "No" answers, leaving you little choice but to spend most of your time discussing the as-yet unproven theory that "consensus is not a vote"—again, just my opinion. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The attempt to remove the disputed legal opinion makes the English Wikipedia community somewhat more Orwellian. Is this not a cause for concern to the English Wikipedia users, including the Mediation Committee members? Yagasi (talk) 11:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I will comment briefly. I did not take part in the case.  However, the issue is not whether to remove a legal opinion from existence, but whether a particular legal opinion was an appropriate part of a particular article.  My own personal opinion was, first, it is a matter of established fact that the Iranian government has made genocidal statements against Israel, but, second, that isn't directly relevant to whether to include that in an article on a a treaty to which the Iranian government is party (and, indeed, which is intended, wisely or unwisely, to mitigate the danger that the Iranian government poses to Israel), and, third, attempting to include the genocide issue in an article about the nuclear treaty would have violated the guideline against coatracking.  That is my opinion.  I will further note that the previous request for formal mediation was declined because discussion was again in progress here, and that a new request for formal mediation can again be made, if the parties agree.  I will also comment that, in my opinion, invoking Orwell in a 1984-like context, of implying that someone is trying to remove the dispute legal opinion from existence (rather than from an article) goes on all fours with Godwin's Law.  Rational discussion has broken down here.  Either try an RFC or request formal mediation.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The article criticizes the JCPOA for excluding provisions against terrorism sponsorship and illegal ballistic missile testing. But criticism or even mentioning genocide or incitement to genocide is taboo. Or, as Beres pointed it out in one of the removed sources, there is an "expressed unwillingness to abide by the 1948 Genocide Convention". If somebody requests formal mediation I will participate. But until then I will not rethink my above opinion. Yagasi (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

COATRACK? What nonsense. surely you do realize that "policy opinions" are unconstructive if they're completely unfounded?
 * The connection between the deal and the failure to include provisions against genocide has been stated by reliable sources. Only ignoring this may lead to the completely wrong COATRACK argument. Yagasi (talk) 06:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Southern Levant
Robert McClenon closed the discussion at Dispute_resolution_noticeboard, because "also pending at WP:ANI", referring to Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents, apparently. The issue at WP:ANI is about a behavioral issue, and was opened at least a day after this discussion. I don't think that there is any substantial reason to close the attempt at dispute resolution here because of it. I call upon Robert McClenon to review his closure. Debresser (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is true that the issue at WP:ANI was behavioral; only behavioral issues should be filed at WP:ANI. It does not matter which thread was filed first.  We do not try to resolve content issues and conduct issues in parallel, and the filing of a conduct dispute causes a content dispute here to be closed.  (This isn't a new rule.  We do not try to resolve a content issue while a conduct issue is in progress.)  The content resolution request can be refiled as long as there is no current conduct dispute if the parties agree to resolution here (since dispute resolution here is voluntary).  Since there isn't currently a thread at ANI about Southern Levant, a new request can be filed here.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Instead, you could simply have left the discussion open. Now you want a new request to be filed, even though nothing has changed. So much bureaucracy... Debresser (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Something did change. There was a substantive reason to close the first thread here, and so substantive action to re-open the thread was in order and has been done.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Re the seventh statement. It was my understanding that the paragraphs provided were for the Academic Usage section which I had folded into the Lead and the other editor wanted reinstated. The paragraph I provided was intended as a version of the Academic Usage section, which I agreed should be reinstated. I believe Oncenawhile was writing his version of the same thing. I'm happy to write a version of the lead article for the RFC, but don't consider that to be the issue. Drsmoo (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * At this point, the issue is the wording of the lede paragraph. However, if you want to open another issue, go ahead.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's fine that it's the lead paragraph. I believe what Oncenawhile and I both submitted as drafts were for the Academic Usage section. If we're talking about the lead then i will re write for the RFC. Drsmoo (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi I was also writing for the main body (the Terminology section). Since all the sources will be in the main body, but may not be in the lede, if we just focus on resolving the lede we will miss the key resolution of how to properly summarize the sources. Would you be open to us submitting both our proposal for main body and our proposal for the relevant lede sentence(s)? Oncenawhile (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Bot
The bot seems to have stopped working, because it isn't marking cases that were closed as premature or badly filed as closed. Has someone taken over management of the bot? User:TransporterMan, User:Hasteur - What is the status of the bot? Has someone taken it over? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears to be working now, unless you're seeing something I'm not. Hasteur appears to really be gone, though I hold out some hope that he may yet change his mind after some time away. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wish I could help, but I'm Bot clueless. Atsme 📞📧 19:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is working now. However, we need someone who can at least restart it when it stops, including stopping when badly filed cases confuse it.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have almost no experience with bots on Wikipedia, but I could try to do that. What kind of interface is used to maintain bots? KSF  T C 23:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Biryani
Is anyone willing to moderate, or should this case be closed for lack of a moderator? It is marginal as far as the criteria for acceptance because of the comments that can be read as religious polemics. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon Can I know why this case was closed? Hammad.511234 (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't close the case. However, sometimes the statements made in closing of cases are self-explanatory.  No moderator volunteered to take the case after ten days.  I will add that one of the reasons why no moderator volunteered to take the case may be that some volunteer moderators don't want to take a case that isn't about religion but in which religion has been raised as an issue, making neutrality even more difficult than it otherwise would be.  As the coordinator noted in closing, a Request for Comments is a reasonable next step.  (I would suggest that editors avoid complicating the issue by religious allusions, but other editors are free to disregard that comment.)  Sometimes closing statements are self-explanatory; no moderator volunteered to take the case.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Everyone who works at DRN is, like all of Wikipedia, a volunteer and no one has to do more than they care to do. Once a case has been listed for a few days and no one has chosen to take it, it's extremely unlikely that anyone will do so and that's especially true after the lack of a volunteer has been raised on this talk page and been given a couple of days. It's best to close it so that the participants can move on to some other form of dispute resolution if they care to do so. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 07:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If it isn't too late, I would be willing to take the case. KSF  T C 14:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Please do, because this is injustice. Hammad.511234 (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Hammad.511234 You aren't helping by using words like "injustice". User:KSFT - Please mark the case as open before it is archived if you are willing to moderate.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the administrators did not help, and just dismissed the case, that's why I came here.Hammad.511234 (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What administrators? Maybe you mean moderators?  Please take another look at the project page and you will see that the case has been opened.  Also, please try to keep your tone of discourse collaborative.  It is primarily the job of the moderator to keep the tone collaborative, but you are coming across to at least one experienced moderator as having a very demanding tone.  (Maybe what seems polite in Indian English comes across as rude in American English.  Remember that not all participants have the same linguistic background as you do.)  But check and see that the case has been opened.  Follow the ground rules set by the moderator, which will almost certainly include to be civil and concise and to comment on content, not on contributors.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

No, administrators, on another page. A demanding tone...? Well, I'm sorry if it came out like that. And I'm actually Canadian, lol. I known the case has been reopened, and I'm happy something's being done. Thank you anyways. Hammad.511234 (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship
Many participants here are great with dealing with conflicts, must decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:


 * Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Two tier
The present process seems to include a "Dispute overview" by the reporting editor, then from other editors a "Summary of dispute", followed by a "First statements by editors" by all. In many cases the first statement can be the same as the dispute overview or the summary of dispute. Therefore I propose to make the first statements step optional. I think that asking for a "first" statement, which is not a first is bureaucratic and even a bit confusing. The process will benefit from streamlining it. I definitely do not think that a "First statement" should be a prerequisite for continuation of the mediation process. Debresser (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "First statement by editors" isn't a fixed part of the protocol. Some moderators ask for a first statement by editors.  Some moderators are more free-form.  I did ask for a first statement by each editor.  User:Debresser provided one, that is consistent with their summary, and that is all right.  No one else has so far said anything.  I then asked for second statements by editors, and am assuming that Debresser won't say anything more, and isn't required to do so.  This is really a matter of how moderators structure the discussion, and not of the protocol.  Do other moderators or volunteers want to comment?  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In that specific case I understood that "Dispute overview" was to be something short and neutral (to the best of my ability). I was therefore happy to receive the chance to provide a statement where I could explain my take on the issue. Nableezy seems to have already done that in his "Summary of dispute", so for him this step would probably be unnecessary. I think that the instructions could be improved by skipping the summary phase for other editors, and go straight from the overview by the reporting editor to first statements for all editors. 14:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)Debresser (talk)
 * There is a space for summaries by all editors to give all of the editors a chance to say something before the moderator opens the case. Different moderators have different styles.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Can't post
See Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request. Cross posting here because that talk page might not be watchlisted. Felsic2 (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The script that is being used to create new requests is new. Who does the maintenance on it?  I am getting the same problem (wheel cycles for a long time) as the reporter.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I was about to try to create an entry manually, but there's a warning about not doing anything until a volunteer has posted the original request. Felsic2 (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Who is maintaining the script? Creating an entry manually sometimes causes bad things to happen.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The fix has been published; everything should be working now. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 02:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I just posted a test case and it posted correctly. Thanks to Enterprisey for the fix. Felsic2 should try reposting his request. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 07:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC) (Current DRN Coordinator)
 * It worked. Thanks all. Felsic2 (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. It worked.  Now waiting for responses from the other editors.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that didn't work out as I'd hoped. But thanks for your time and effort. Felsic2 (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. As a regular volunteer here, I would almost always prefer to see cases resolved at this noticeboard, and am disappointed when editors don't want to discuss here, but discussion here, like most forms of content resolution, is voluntary.  The next step may be formal mediation, but that is not much more likely to work than did informal mediation here, or a Request for Comments, or arbitration enforcement.  (If you don't know what arbitration enforcement is, that is probably good, because you probably don't really want to know.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I put in a filing at WP:AE, where I mentioned this case and your name. Once that's settled I guess I'll request formal mediation. Felsic2 (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Need Moderators
Two threads need moderators. Volunteers are asked to open the two threads that are waiting for moderators. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I just opened one of them. It is nice to get back to it after taking a break for a while. I was getting a bit burned out but now am refreshed and eager to help them resolve the dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Is archiving a live discussion a form of edit warring?
When trying to sort out a content issue, an editor tries to stifle Talk Page discussion by immediately archiving the discussion, saying that the "discussion is closed". Is this edit warring? Is there a suitable way to deal with this tactic? Santamoly (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * This inquiry — which is off-topic here — has been answered on the editor's user talk page. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 02:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * @TransporterMan, can you explain further? Is there a better page for dispute "definition" questions? You haven't answered on my Talk Page; have you answered on someone else's Talk Page?  Thanks! Santamoly (talk) 04:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC


 * Santamoly is talking about Talk: Pokémon Go, in which four different editors (,, and myself) have closed a discussion early, because Santamoly failed to bring up new sources.  soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I advise everyone here to ignore the above and refuse to answer any further questions.


 * At the very top of this page it clearly states "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dispute resolution noticeboard page".


 * Anything other than discussing improvements to the dispute resolution noticeboard page needs to be taken elsewhere (WP:DRR is a good place to start), and we should not answer here because doing that encourages more off-topic discussions. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Commenting on Content, Not Contributors
Guy Macon wrote, on the project page: 'DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors. If anyone has a problem with this, let me know and we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer.' I mostly agree, but disagree only in the idea that any dispute resolution volunteer should even consider accepting a case in which one of the editors wants to discuss other editors. I would like to emphasize that, in my opinion, no editor should ever be focusing on the behavior of other editors. Guy is right. If there really is a content dispute and editors are willing to discuss content, talking about content may make any conduct issues, such as stubbornness, go away. If there really is a dispute that is primarily about conduct, this isn't the right place, and isn't even the least wrong place. The least wrong place to discuss editor conduct is either WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say that this is something that most of the volunteers here would agree with to a greater or lesser extent, Robert McClenon. I know that this was one reason that I liked to both watch cases unfold here, and to rarely take on a case when needed or in an area of interest (despite my drop off the radar). Hopefully more of the editors that bring their cases here read that before trying to use DRN and then being redirected, though that can be helpful as well. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 14:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We are saying the same thing. Some volunteers say it more strongly than others.  My only issue with what User:Guy Macon said was that implied that if an editor wants to talk about other editors, there might be volunteer who will allow it.  There might, but we shouldn't encourage volunteers to permit discussion of the behavior of other editors.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Really good comments. I think I will take the "If anyone has a problem with this, let me know and we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer" language out of my standard opening. Maybe I should add "If anyone has a problem with me as a mediator, let me know and we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer" at the end? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Dispute not handled appropriately?
Was this case handled appropriately: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Expulsion_of_Cham_Albanians

It was essentially opened and then closed within a few hours. I would have preferred if the discussion went on so I could clarify a few points. Also, it seems, at least to me, that the volunteer is under the impression that he/she is an arbitrator.

Could it be reopened? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Responding for myself, the DRN isn't really the place for this, you went to the NOR, they presumably told you no, you came here, and would not be reasoned with in the face of facts, I do not think I am an arbitrator, as I mentioned i cannot force you to follow the instructions, I can only ask the admin to punish you if you dont. Also it only took an hour, the issue was very simple, You asked if it was OR, it was not, thus the case ended there. As I mentioned the DRN probably isnt the right place to go in the first place, I would again you recommend arbitration or mediation, as they are capable of making binding decisions. Iazyges (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As per Q.10 of the FAQ I pointed you in the right direction (arbitration or mediation.) Iazyges (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , we have had it enough with your refusals and denials. This has gone too far. Edit warrings, 3RR breaches, failure to reach a consensus with other users in the talk pages, disruptive edits, abuse of Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanisms, prolongation of a dispute that could otherwise have been easily settled down, and now you are not accepting the dispute resolution! This is way too much and very unfair.
 * @, to me it is clear that this user is refusing to get the point and I have already warned him multiple times for that, but from what I see, he is insisting with his disruptive behavior. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  10:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually you closed the dispute thread very quickly and did not give myself a chance to reply (at least 24 hours to get all those involved a say at least) while the previous dispute mediator gave some time for all to participate. You have summerised the issues however those sources did not contradict that the Chams "didn't want to fight on the side of the ottomans". Baltsiotis was referring to the eve of the Balkan Wars when that sentiment existed. All Cham militias were formed with the commencement of the Balkan Wars by their elites in autumn when the Balkan Wars started. It was one of the reasons why there was a OR issue because the sentence was clumped with other content when it should have been separate.Resnjari (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well as I pointed out this was in the wrong place to file it begin with, it should have been appealed to the NOR, or done RFC, arbitration or mediation. The dispute was if the sentence was original research, by translating the greek source on the page, is perfectly in line with the text, (other than the ottoman thing which will be fixed). Ergo the case was done, it had been proven that it was not OR, even though this board isn't really for that. Iazyges (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * . My main concern was that you said that the bit about the Chmans not wanting to fight on the Ottomans side was contradicted by other sources. Baltsiotis was referring to the sentiment on the eve of the Balkans wars. The other sources referred to the start and continuance of that conflict with Chams participating. Your remarks on that would mean that that part of the sentence would be removed by editors even though there is no contradiction with any of the scholarship. That is what concerned me and i did not have the time to respond to that. You closed it to quick.Resnjari (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , the dispute was about the 3 or so sentences being OR, it was not. The sentence "The chams did not want to fight alongside the turks" was inconsistent with the greek source who said "many of the raiders fought alongside the turks." Iazyges (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * To clarify Baltsiotis used the word Ottomans, not Turks. Moreover how is it inconsistent ? The Baltsiotis reference was citing the sentiment of the Chams on the eve of the Balkan Wars that they did not want to fight with the Ottomans. While the Greek sources (separate to Baltsiotis) give information of Cham participation during the Balkan wars. Big difference. During war everything changes. All sources do not contradict each other. Your conclusion of inconsistency implies that pre-war sentiment is inconsistent to be cited in the article as the later participation by Muslim Chams on the side of the Ottomans occurred somehow abrogating it altogether.Resnjari (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As it was, a sentence with no sources cited said that the cham didn't want to fight for the ottomans, the greek source says they did fight for the ottomans, as such the sentence should be changed and the sources cited. Iazyges (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? Did you simply not read the source I presented during our discussion:
 * "Although Muslim Chams were not eager to fight on the side of the Ottoman army during the Balkan Wars, they were nevertheless treated by the Greek army as de facto enemies, while local Christians were enlisted in the Greek forces. For example, a few days after the occupation of the area of Chamouria by the Greek Army, 72 or 78 Muslim notables were executed by a Greek irregular military unit in the religiously mixed town of Paramythia, evidently accused of being traitors.31 During the Balkan War, in late 1912, when Muslim Chams were fighting on the side of the Ottoman Army, and Christian Chams on that of the Greek Army, several local conflicts emerged" — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevilWearsBrioni (talk • contribs) 14:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , Baltsiotis is a expert in the field of Cham studies and his work is in a peer reviewed journal. His reference was about pre-war, not during or post-war. The other Greek source says they the Chams fought for the Ottomans and no one is denying this, even Baltsiotis or Albanian sources if i bother to use them. The issue here is how come citing pre-war sentiment is somehow a contradiction from event that took place later ? Like i said things changed.Resnjari (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok then, it appears i misread that part, the bit with the ottomans doesn't need to be changed, however nothing devilwearsbrioni brought before me is OR. Iazyges (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2016

(UTC)
 * Thank you. When you closed the thread with that conclusion its what got me concerned. The sentence should be split anyway. Too much compacting created to much mess which kind of has created issues.Resnjari (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear Resnjari, you are trying to create a discussion here even though it is over. And what you said is not solid proof that there is an OR case... From the moment the scholars agreed that the Chams had a hatred for the Greeks and sided with the Ottomans already from the beginning of the war, leaves no open room for speculations from your part about their reluctance. The sources explain that the Chams opposed - through their actions - the Greeks already from the onset of the war and this says it all. Now if you have trouble facing the facts, it is not my problem. But I will not allow you and your friend, DevilWearsBrioni, to drag everyone into endless debates about a historical event that took place 100 years ago and in spite of solid sources proving that the Chams rushed to Ottoman aid from Autumn already. I am sorry but this is how things are. And it is not Iazyges' fault that you didn't pay attention to the noticeboard for a reply from you to be made in time Have a good day. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  13:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * @SilentResident even in your comment "From the moment the scholars agreed that the Chams had a hatred for the Greeks and sided with the Ottomans already from the beginning of the war" you still refer to the beginning of the war. Baltsiotis was referring to the eve of the war and that there is no contradiction with any of the sources. Yes the Chams did have a "hatred" of the Greeks as the Balkans war stated (which was in autumn too). For Muslims it was a invasion, while for Christians it was a liberation and there is multiple sources for that. Again the thread was closed to quick for other editors involved to give a response and no one is dragging anyone here or there (closed within the hour !). A new adjudicator entered the picture. You may not have been busy to respond and Brioni too, but i and Alexikoua did not respond. At the very least a response so some kind of impartiality can be observed. Also why are you referring to Brioni as my friend? Please no need for that. As an editor i am a lone operator and prefer it that way. Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is friend, in the sense of colleague / mate / fellow wiki user whom you shared opinions and are on the same side on the debate. Not friends in real life sense. -_- -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  13:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just refer to him as a fellow editor. Its neutral terminology. I don't know his personal views nor do i care for that of others. This is an encyclopedia and we use scholarship to edit it. Beyond that what a person has as their personal belief system/views/mores etc does not interest me one bit. Each editor has their own viewpoint. Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm a little puzzled by the technicalities of the closure. One reason is that it appears that there may have been an unannounced change in moderation.  The original moderator was User:Guy Macon.  Was the close by User:Iazyges?  Also, there isn't a regular formal close summary.  I am not objecting to the close, but am a little puzzled.  Who closed it, and what is the close summary?  Robert McClenon (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * as guy macon was dealing with real world issues, I offered to take over the case and he said yes, you can check his talk page if you'd like. If you look under guy macons introduction, I introduced myself. Iazyges (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I will note that, if editors want to go forward beyond DRN with something binding, that should be Request for Comments. Arbitration is not in order because it is only used as the last stop for conduct disputes (and because Arbitration Enforcement is already available), and formal mediation, while an excellent way to work out disputes, is not capable of making binding decisions.  Any editor who doesn't like the result can submit a neutrally worded RFC, which is binding.  Robert McClenon (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear Robert McClenon, I have made my position clear: this dispute is being dragged for a very very long time even if it is not an OR case, only because the users above are not satisfied with the fact that nobody had agreed with them and nobody has accepted their opinions. But this is not my problem anymore, and from the moment the 3rd parties have concluded that this is not a OR case, a resolution came clear I am done with it and I do not intent to sit around until these above guys are finally convinced about the weakness of their OR claims (which not only failed to convince us the others in article's Talk Page, but also on the NOR noticeboard!). For me it is really over this time, so if there is going to be any reopening of the case, it will be done in my absence, and its validity will be questioned, because dragging it for so long and keeping disputing the resolution gives the disturbing impression "lets drag the case infinitely until the decission is overturned to their favor, and then close it". The way this user has dragged this case anywhere, even on 2 different noticeboards, has truly exhausted me because I am called to defend the obvious in a case which otherwise could have been dismissed from the start, given the sources. Have a good day. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  13:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * two of the four editors participated in the discussion with a new mediator to the discussion which was closed within the hour. Two found time to participate, while two (me being one) was not free at that moment to at least give a reply. It was closed within one hour which brings issues up of being a impartial decision. The other mediator at least gave some time for all to give their response. I will say that we do have lives outside Wikipedia too.Resnjari (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * DevilWearsBrioni represented the one side, and I (SilentResident) represented the other side. Where do you see the impartiality here??? Do not forget - Alexikoua also was not present, so 1 to 1 was not in favor of either side. The discussion was anything but impartial because both sides were represented during the resolution in equal numbers. Both sides were present, both sides made their statements, and the overseer valued upon them and the sources provided before making the final decission. Nice try of your part to dispute a resolution that was not in your favor this way but this is not convincing... -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  13:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Like I've explained to you on several occasions before, if my conduct is an issue, take it to ANI. I don't appreciate this false narrative you've created which attempts to discredit me. Any unsubstantiated accusation you've made here I'd gladly respond to at ANI.


 * You repeatedly attacked a straw man rather than addressing the real issue. The dispute essentially became a shouting contest, where posts like this went unpunished. Guy made a good effort actually making sure such posts weren't tolerated. Further, you didn't even address some of the concerns I raised with regards to synthesis of material, even though your were actively involved in the discussion. You basically dismissed any further discussion with your second statement, that's hardly a discussion. You state: as I mentioned i cannot force you to follow the instructions, I can only ask the admin to punish you if you dont What does that even mean? For the record, Q10 addresses, as far as I can tell, why disputes that don't belong at DRN are closed which is irrelevant to our case. Formal mediation is out of the question since the opposing editros will simply refer to this case, and arbitration deals with user conduct. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not attack a strawman, the summary you filed under said "Is this OR" I was within the hour able to prove it was not, and my admin can punish you is per WP:M, Which i linked in the final words part that you got it from, right next to it in fact. Iazyges (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did. You wrote: . I have never claimed that they didn't burn villages, neither did I claim that Muslim bands didn't raid villages in Autumn. That's a straw man. My contention is that two or more sources are used to conclude something that neither sources explicitly state, i.e. that Muslim Chams were treated as enemies before/on the onset of war because of the village burnings that occurred during the war (and raids by Muslim bands in Autumn). DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for you to give your input on this. I assume you're aware of Baltsiotis by now? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh my, now you are attacking Iazyges, dear Resnjari? You aren't serious, are you? If you are, then I stop my participation right here. Enough, simply enough, I have had it enough. I am so tired and exhausted, this dispute caused by your colleague DevilWearsBrioni is NEVER ENDING and I doubt now that you really intend to ever end it. We are dragged into THREE SEPARATE PAGES and if that wasn't enough, now there are attenpts to re-open(!) and re-discuss(!) it all from beginning? You do not want to end this dispute! God, this is persecution if not something! I am seriously considering abandoning the Wikipedia project now... -_- -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  13:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Resnjari and DevilWearsBrioni are dragging a nonsense dispute anywhere, just to prove their point and without respect for anything, not even respect to 3rd party mediators such as Iazyges. I do not want to be part of it anymore. My statement is final. I wish everyone a good day and do not expect more replies from me, because you know, I need to protect my sanity. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  13:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * To the administrators and mediators: thank you for your valuable time and sincere contribution in resolving this dispute once and for all, but I am afraid it was an waste of time, judging from the above comments of DevilWearsBrioni and Resnjari. I thank you and I am sorry I could not help but eventually leave this. Thank you for your understanding and have a good day. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  13:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * @SilentResident. I have attacked no one. The thread was closed within an hour of only two editors and a new moderator participating. I don't want to re discuss from the beginning as that is futile. There was no response from either me or Alexikoua and it was closed within an hour. You are tired and exhausted as am i because these things are rushed. As for Brioni he is not my "colleague" also. I am my own person. I am not Brioni's keeper.Resnjari (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * the reason why time for both you and alex wasn't given is that as i mentioned before this case is an oddity and shouldn't have been filed her, because the DRN is for consensus, whether something is OR or not does not require consensus, it only requires proof, within the hour I found that proof, and as such closed the case. I also pointed to all the boards he could go to if he seeked yet another opinion on the matter. Iazyges (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Iazyges on the procedure. There was nothing more to add and DWB is still recycling the same arguments accompanied by endless accusations against coeditors (latest example []). No wonder a block was also suggested as a possible solution to this obsession by the specific user.Alexikoua (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A final note: this may be irrelevant to this case, and not the appropriate page for it, but I have checked the No Original Noticeboard, and I have found that the user DevilWearsBrioni was involved in more such failed SYNTH/NOR cases against other users, besides this one here, and I shall note that the other editors appear to have warned him back then that he, again, did not had a strong NOR claim. This case was raised on the NOR Noticeboard back in February 2016 if my memory does not fail me. I am posting this information here just to let the administrators and mediators be aware that, given DevilWearsBrioni's his multiple (but failed) NOR cases against other Wikipedia members, it is very likely that DevilWearsBrioni may actually be obsessed or have a wrong perception of what No Original Research really is about. I am sorry, I can't help but note the oddity of the current NOR case and its similarity with other failed NOR cases raised by DevilWearsBrioni in the past on the NOR noticeboard. I urge the Administrators to take action against that user if he is insisting with his perceptions of Wikipedia's rules. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  14:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Checking the talk page of the Cham Albanian article (yes, the same article from where the whole dispute arose in the first place), shows that, just some days ago, DevilWearsBrioni has made, again, new(!) accusations (this time, the new accusation is SYNTH), which has gotten me worried for the objectivity of his claims and raises very valid questions on the motives behind his repeated OR / SYNTH accusations and claims against other users. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  14:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * @, @ In light of the new information above, I am asking for your sincere attention. DevilWearsBrioni appears to be abusing the Wikipedia's NOR/SYNTH rules. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  14:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Why don't you post it? You claim that you checked the NOR noticeboard, but at the same time state that it was "back in February 2016 if my memory does not fail me". Here's my most recent posts at NOR (apart from the Cham Expulsion): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_37#Trying_to_understand_SYNTH. Did it really "fail"? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not this. I am talking about the other one, in which you raised a case against another user, some months ago. Was it March or February? -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  14:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Post it then. You just wrote . Go ahead. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You know very well for which one I am talking. The one with title "No Original Research Policy should not take 8 years to grasp". When it was? I don't remember date. February 2016? Tell me, what happened back then? Wasnt it a an OR accusation or something, against other users (not me)? I may be wrong, it has been a very long timn since I have stumbled on it, but I swear, I saw your name in it. Which, in the light of the recent NOR / SYNTH accusations, have made me believe that there is more to it than simply the current case. My apologies if I dont remember exact dates, as I do not have access to it. But I am sure I saw your name back then. My whole point here is not to judge you or accuse you. But to highlight your NOR / SYNTH cases in both the Talk Page of Cham Albanians, here, and in the NOR noticeboard. I can't help but inform the others that you had arguments or disputes in the No Original Noticeboard prior to today's debate. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  14:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That was at ANI. You do understand the difference? I made a report about Alexikoua not understanding OR policy and referred to Cham Expulsion and the Fustanella article. How is this relevant here? Do you still intend to focus on me? How many more times are you going to say "I'm done with this, this will be my last statement" and then pop up again to accuse me of breaking every policy in the book? You have polluted this talk page with temper tantrums and rants about me. There are appropriate noticeboards where my conduct can be discussed, for example ANI. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ahhh that is! Finally. Thank you for correcting my memory. Now, please, a link to it will be very much appreciated! A link please? :) -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  15:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, your confirmation is enough for me. Now everyone can be aware that this particular user, DevilWearsBrioni, has unfortunately raised multiple cases of NOR / SYNTH against other users, and particularly Alexikoua, with two of which being brought to various noticeboards, such as the: Administrator's Noticeboard, DisputeResolution Noticeboard, and NoOriginalResearch Noticeboard, but none of these cases turned in favor of DevilWearsBrioni, and his NOR/SYNTH cases remained either unresolved, unanswered, or ignored if my memory does not fail me, besides this one which was decided against him. I can't help but note all these informations for the administrators in light of a new SYNTH case he has raised a few days ago in the Expulsion of Cham Albanian talk page. My job bringing the information (relevant or not, won't be decided by me) to the Administrators and moderators, is done. I have nothing more to say or add to this information which is now noted for everyone to have in his/her attention. There is nothing more I can do from my part. I am off. Thank you for your contribution and I hope everyone has a good day. :-) -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  15:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * User:SilentResident - You appear to be saying that User:DevilWearsBrioni is abusing the process of reporting original research. My thought is, if you really think that there is an abuse of process, you should report it at WP:ANI.  In an extreme case, the result would be a topic-ban from reporting of OR.  At the same time, I think that the bar for complaining that the reporting of OR is an abuse of process is high.  As to the immediate case in point, it is clear that nothing will be gained from re-opening the case on the expulsion of the Cham Albanians, and that nothing will be gained from continuing to discuss this closure.  User:SilentResident - Either report the abuse of process, or let it drop.  User:DevilWearsBrioni - Either file the RFC on the OR, or let it drop.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Look, we can sit here and pretend that you don't have access to the report, but that's not going to work with me. You somehow remembered the title, and even managed to capitalize the exact same words. Moreover, with regards to, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard&oldid=720922969#Trying_to_understand_SYNTH. I even remember you reverting me on the Fustanella article until I showed you the response by Scoobydunk. Some honesty, please? Also, concerning You should try that at ANI instead, and I'll gladly provide you with the link if you decide to go ahead with it. Don't forget though, at ANI, unlike what you've done here, you need to substantiate these claims. DevilWearsBrioni (talk)
 * Of course I remembered the title. I even googled it and Google has send me to the Expulsion of Cham Albanians talk page where the title can be confirmed, but it cannot send you to the archived page. Here is Alexikoua's comment copy-pasted with the link-less title: @DWB: The fact that you believe that: "Muslim Chams were treated as de facto enemies by the Greek state because Muslim bands raided villages from autumn 1912." is OR raises serious questions about the way you can understand an inline reference. Pretending that this is blantant OR and taking this straight to ANI without even posting here before and with aggresive headings ("No Original Research Policy should not take 8 years to grasp"?) can be easily considered as the epitomy of disruption Enjoy! :) -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  15:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Like I said: you have cases dating back, a long time before your encounters with me at the Foustanela or your encounters with me at the Expulsion of Cham Albanians. Your troubled history record with NOR or SYNTH related cases is not something new and that is why I felt obliged to inform everyone about: you are the one who started all the NOR disputes. YOU. None else. NONE else. Only you. In all occasions, the disputes were started by you and none else. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  15:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Now I have said what I had to say. I have left this information to the attention of other users who, in the future, may stumble on new NOR or SYNTH cases by you. At least, this will allow the mediators and administrators just to be aware. From my part, there is nothing more i can do. I am done here. Have a good day. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  15:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

About to Close Thread
I am about to close this thread. Nothing is to be gained by further discussion here. User:SilentResident - Either report abuse of the OR process, or let it drop and accept that you have your way on this content dispute unless there is an RFC. User:DevilWearsBrioni - Either file an RFC on whether there is OR, or let it drop. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Noted. My problem is with a user who is not willing to respect the content dispute resolution and for being involved in incidents or cases that are of similar nature to it, not with the very resolution itself. Your advice is noted and appreciated. Thank you, Robert McClenon. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  14:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Michael Greger DRN case
Moved by volunteer. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Would you consider revisiting your close? The case doesn't really involve a large number of disputants, it only appears that way because User:Alexbrn asked me to include more. The main disputants have been myself, him, and User:Jytdog recently. Almost all the others either came from WP:FTN to offer brief comments, or were SPAs/possible socks trying to eliminate the Hall content. The issue is simple and straightforward, so I think WP:DRN is appropriate. I do not want to do an RfC because editors from FTN (who mostly do good work, and I am not casting aspersions) will vote in a bloc, skewing the result. I've also generally never found the RfC process to be good for anything. Everyone has already been notified of this discussion and offered initial comments. I hope you will consider just going through with the process. If not, I will list it at WP:M. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC) Also, the issue is very simple, concerning whether two lines of text are covered by BLPSPS. The process would definitely be lightweight and quick. --User:Sammy1339


 * On the one hand, the request as filed is closed and I will leave it closed. On the other hand, it was closed without prejudice and can be refiled at DRN with a shorter list of editors.  I will ask:  Is the issue a simple and straightforward one where compromise is possible?  As stated, it doesn't appear to be an issue that permits compromise, in which case it isn't clear to me how DRN will help (or, for that matter, how formal mediation will help).  The primary purpose of DRN is to facilitate compromise.  As stated, there appears to be a yes/no question, and that isn't likely to be settled at DRN.  Some editors file at DRN because they expect that the moderator will act as an arbitrator, but that isn't the proper role of a DRN moderator.  The case can be refiled, without the long list of editors, but I will ask User:Sammy1339 whether this really is a question where compromise is being sought.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. Can you recommend any alternative to RfC then? That takes over a month and produces endless confusion, and often no result. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If the issue isn't one where compromise is sought, then neither DRN nor mediation is the right place for you. In the specific case, which has to do with sources, you could try the reliable source noticeboard.  I am reasonably sure that it is non-binding, like the fringe theory noticeboard.  RFC, when it results in consensus, is intended to be binding.  It is true that it sometimes results in no consensus, in which case you are where you started.  It is also true that sometimes an editor doesn't accept the consensus and edits against consensus, which is a form of disruptive editing that is difficult to deal with.  If you want a quick decisive answer, Wikipedia doesn't have that.  I welcome the comments of other volunteers, but those are my comments.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See Q15 in the FAQ. DRN is not for requests for a yes/no ruling, but, as the FAQ states, for mediation, facilitated discussion.  If there isn't room for compromise, some approach other than mediation may be in order.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon Settlement of Britain
Is some volunteer willing to take on this persistent case with multiple editors? It looks to me as though it may be more appropriate for formal mediation in view of how many editors it involves and how many times it has been raised here or at other noticeboards. However, is anyone willing to take it? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Tigrayans
Can someone please help me address this request, which I closed again today? I don't entirely know what the filing party is saying, mostly recently on my talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=739185168&oldid=739166377 It appears that they have a dispute with one other editor, when there are multiple editors involved. It also appears to me that they are stating their issue as a conduct dispute, although I am having difficulty understanding their statement. If some volunteer does understand what the issue is, and is willing to moderate, they can encourage the filing party to refile. I think that there may be a language barrier that prevents effective moderation. If someone is able to transcend that barrier, I thank them. Can someone take another look and see if I should have opened the case or if it should be reopened? I can't open it myself both because I already have a case and because I can't understand what the filing party is saying. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Hastings
User:Hchc2009 has made some interesting conditions on their acceptance of my mediation, including the right of the parties to the mediation to assign research to the mediator. I have never worked mediation in that way, because it has been my view that the parties should present their views of the facts, should be able to state their views clearly to each other and to the moderator, and that the moderator does not arbitrate on matters of fact such as disputed historical facts (the main issue here). We can do one of three things. First, another moderator can take over, either who either will meet the conditions of Hchc2009 or in whom Hchc2009 has confidence. In that case, mediation can proceed. Second, Hchc2009 can withdraw from the mediation and the mediation can continue with less than all of the editors. Third, I can fail the mediation. If I fail the mediation, it can be taken to formal mediation, where the moderator typically has even stricter control, or a Request for Comments can be used. I am willing (either during mediation or after failing mediation) to assist in writing a neutrally worded RFC. What do other volunteers say? What do the parties say? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As noted previously, the original talk page discussion on the article concerned llasted only a few hours; much of the world would have slept through it. The guidance is clear that this sort of process should not begin until there has been substantive dialogue on those pages. A fourth alternative would be to return the debate it to the article page and let normal debate ensue, without making demands on editors such as myself to "check these pages very 48 hours" etc. - which isn't a very productive way to start off a mediation discussion. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I will also comment that User:Hchc2009, whom I added manually to the list of editors, has removed themselves from the list of editors. I am a little puzzled as to how someone who has deleted themselves from the list of editors wants to set conditions on how the case is mediated, but that is what it is.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * If you're prepared not to bother me again, Robert, then let's leave it at that. I didn't ask you to add me to your list in the first place, nor to demand that I check these pages every 48 hours,, etc,, etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll point out that I too felt that too little discussion took place on the talk page. And I also felt that "Every editor must check on the status of this case at least every 48 hours and answer all questions at least every 48 hours." for what is supposed to be a voluntary process (or at least I assume so) was really very demanding. The way it was phrased quite put me off on the whole process, honestly. I felt like my effort to go along with this process (attempting to show my good faith in the other editor) was being demanded and that I was being talked down to. If this is supposed to be voluntary ... it sure didn't feel like it after that statement. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Going Forward
I have always stated the 48-hour rule for moderated discussion, and it is necessary in order to be consistent with the principle that most cases are settled in one to two weeks. Discussion here can’t be an off-and-on process. We can’t wait for a long time for editors to take wikibreaks while leaving the case on hold. We have to keep cases here moving. Formal mediation often takes months. All that happens if an editor doesn’t respond in 48 hours is that they don’t contribute to that round of discussion, and the thread moves in, and they can jump in later, but should notice anything that has been said. If no editor comments in 48 hours, a case will be closed without prejudice, meaning that it can be refiled.

We can handle this in at least five ways. First, another moderator can take over. Second, Hchc2009 can remain withdrawn from the mediation, and the mediation can continue. Third, I can close the mediation and send it back to the article talk page. I see that two editors appear to be requesting that. I think that at least The Parson’s Cat requested the mediation, but if other editors choose not to mediate, there is no mediation, and discussion can go back to the talk page. Fourth, formal mediation can be requested. (This is informal mediation.) Fifth, a Request for Comments can be used. I would like to hear the comments of other volunteers. If no one says anything in 24 hours, I will close the case without prejudice and send it back to the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Electoral Commission
The arbcom electoral commission needs at least one more volunteer, and comments on the existing volunteers would also be welcome. See Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Electoral Commission for details. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator resignation
I've been carrying on as coordinator for several months since my last actual term. Real world matters now prevent me from continuing and I'm fully resigning from the position. I may put my name on the list again in the future and will sometimes help with administration here without the coordinator hat, but I'm done for now. I've removed my name from the header (by modifying Dispute resolution noticeboard/Co-ordinator/Current), though it may take some time to actually work its way onto the main page. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of state leaders in the 10th century

 * Tahc's claim of Bgwhite's comments above seems to indicate he did not even see that discussion is false as opening DRN came before "that discussion" had started.
 * As far as I can tell, Tahc has not said he is compromising. The edit summary where he claims to compromise doesn't say it, however that edit introduces a WP:LISTGAP issue which ends up causing the same identical problem as the "**" vs ":*" issue, therefore no compromise has happened. Third party Scolaire  states So you're telling me that you're not fighting on the colon issue, but you are deliberately introducing list gaps? You know that there's a convention at LISTGAP but you've decided you think it looks better broken? I don't know.. Tahc hasn't responded.  From what a sighted reader sees and a screen reader speaks still is different.
 * Tahc has not said he agrees with RexxS. He has said this a content issue, not accessibility and there is no reason to discuss on page with RexxS' message.
 * Forum shopping? Ask for a third party review and they agree with me.  Tahc wanted a discussion at an accessibility talk page or VPT.  I did that and they agreed with me.  I asked at DRN to resolve a dispute.  I'm greatly offended that following WP:CONTENTDISPUTE is now forum shopping.
 * Banner's claim of accusations that "I did not read what was written" by Bgwhite slamming is also false. Banner said Nice wall of text, but not the evidence I am looking for.  From WP:WALLS However, an equal-but-opposite questionable strategy is dismissal of legitimate evidence and valid rationales with a claim of "text-walling" or "TL;DR". There's also refs where TL;DR is a synonym for "Wall of Text".  Banner said themselves they didn't read it.
 * Banner also has said the is Another case of pushing the MOS in a very scary manner.   Changing a : into a * for better accessibility is now "scary"? How in the @(#*@) world is this even a dispute?  Opposing a very, very minor change in code that doesn't change how a page is viewed, but increases the "readability" of screen readers???? Bgwhite (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * if you still care about and are still confused by any of these, take them to Talk:List of state leaders in the 10th century. Thank you. If you are just tring to score points by making as many accusations as possible, then I recomend you find a new hobby. tahc chat 21:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)