Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 28

Updated Co-ordinator list
I have updated the co-ordinator list as it was pretty outdated and had not seen updates for months. Just a note that I moved the past dates in the current/future coordinator slots to the prior coordinator slots and created 2 blank slots open for volunteers. Yashovardhan (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your update to the current coordinator page because 's term ends at the end of May. Moreover, he'll update the list himself if necessary. Your updation was rather a shock. Yashovardhan (talk) 09:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * --Sorry,. Winged Blades Godric 09:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Double standard?
I don't understand how you let someone accuse me (and you, by extension) of believing in a conspiracy theory (a personal attack), but warn me for noting that there's no hope for compromise with them due to their behavior.Terrorist96 (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * moved from my talk page.
 * Can you please share a diff where you were personally attacked during the course of the DRN. Yashovardhan (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. First attack: "the only logical conclusion is that you are asserting that this CS is not pure BS", My response: "Accusing me of believing in the theory is a personal attack", Doubling down on his initial attack - "slaughter of the innocents" and "it's the only logical conclusion".Terrorist96 (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks for providing the diffs. I've already collapsed that discussion since I don't support threaded discussion in places where It's not supposed to be. I can see where your concern comes from. Do you want me to warn for this discussion? Yashovardhan (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes.Terrorist96 (talk) 04:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Reminder to all volunteers
Do not forget to remove the template while closing cases or they won't be auto archived until 14 days from the start date. - You both forgot to remove the template from your last few closures. Yashovardhan (talk) 07:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I again removed them from your last two closures. Take care next time. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I always replace the DNAU template with the DRN archive top template. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Time for a changeover
A couple of important announcements:
 * As some of you might have already noticed, I have taken over as the DRN coordinator from today and will continue at least until the end of July. I hope to keep things in good shape up here. has also been awarded the Grade 3 DRN award for his distinguished service as the DRN coordinator for 3 continuous terms! My hearty congratulations to him! Yashovardhan (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Also note that the last Roll call has just ended. The list of volunteers has been reduced to just 14 18 (from52!) editors. If you wanted to keep volunteering but forgot to add your name to the roll calls list, your name has been removed from the volunteer list. You can re add it here if you wish to continue volunteering. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Good work, thanks, and good luck! Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 23:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this has been discussed on the article talk page (No)
I just closed another request that had not been discussed on the talk page. I think that the number of requests that have not been discussed on a talk page, but where the filer elects to say that it has been discussed, just illustrates that having a bot screen out incorrect filings won't help, and that the only correction for human mistakes, such as premature filing, is a human. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. The number of such filings is just increasing day by day and a bot won't really help. (I also suggest issuing a gentle warning note on the user talk page of such filers as many editors tend to repeat such behaviour, though that's just a random thought). I can understand cases where "some" discussion took place and more discussion is needed on talk page but (as in your last close) no discussion (with a red linked talk page, seriously?) is just taking it to the next level. An edit notice can be used as a last resort to warn editors against filing such cases as well. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I also had a look at the dispute request form and figure that It's too much for some editors to read. They just don't care to take the time to figure out what the form says. I'd suggest adding a summary of important points to the top of the form in big bold text. Especially warning against filing cases when there's not enough (or no) talk page discussion. I think they take the form as just a formality and think that It's some kind of a cookie warning or something (like press yes if you agree and want to continue or press no). Big changes are needed. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the number of bad filings is increasing. I think that bad filings just sometimes happen in bunches.  See Poisson distribution.  Some things, like troopers kicked to death by horses, and bad filings, and goals in association football, just happen.  I don't think that big changes are needed, but I am not sure what the big changes would be anyway.  Wikipedia is complicated.  Anyway, frivolous filings at DRN do less harm than frivolous filings at WP:ANI.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd still suggest making some changes to the request form - adding a big bold notice to the top to make sure there's been sufficient talk page discussion. The present note probably goes un noticed. Did you see Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request. I've added a note to the top as it was used sometimes to try and file a new case. Yashovardhan (talk) 04:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * And today we see just another example. *sigh*. Yashovardhan (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Bi-monthly Volunteer Awards
Please look at WP:DRN/VA and comment on its talk page. Your suggestions are requested and welcome. Pinging all volunteers for comments. Yashovardhan (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * An RFC will be conducted soon. All editors, including non-volunteers may offer their suggestions. Yashovardhan (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to advertise about Dispute Resolution at Template:Calm
As you all might already know, the template Calm is used on talk pages where discussion tends to be heated and editors at such pages might want to use Dispute Resolution to resolve such disputes. I proposed advertising about Dispute Resolution on the template itself. My proposal can be seen here. Please comment there itself and we can request an edit if a consensus is reached. Yashovardhan (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, but the wording might need a bit more work imo. -- Terra  (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ya I agree. How do you suppose we frame it? Yashovardhan (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , my proposed wording is at Template:Calm/sandbox. Input is welcome.  Programming Geek talk to me 14:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Replied on the template talk page. Look at the new developments here. Yashovardhan (talk) 12:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Important note Per discussion on Template talk with, a change was made in the template. Volunteers might want to prepare themselves for an increase in new (possibly premature) filings. Volunteers are expected to close premature cases only after proper analysis and with a useful closing statement which helps editors take the right next step. Your last close was good and to the point. Well done! Yashovardhan (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC Announce: Wikimedia referrer policy
In February of 2016 the Wikimedia foundation started sending information to all of the websites we link to that allow the owner of the website (or someone who hacks the website, or law enforcement with a search warrant / subpoena) to figure out what Wikipedia page the user was reading when they clicked on the external link.

The WMF is not bound by Wikipedia RfCs, but we can use an advisory-only RfC to decide what information, if any, we want to send to websites we link to and then put in a request to the WMF. I have posted such an advisory-only RfC, which may be found here:

Village pump (policy)

Please comment so that we can determine the consensus of the Wikipedia community on this matter. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Filings and Topics That One Doesn't Understand
Here are a few comments on filings and topics that volunteers do not understand. A volunteer just closed a case in which there had been no proper discussion, and in which they didn’t understand what the filing was about. We sometimes get filings in which it is hard, especially for someone with no prior knowledge, to understand what the case is about. In general, it should be the responsibility of the disputing editors to explain what the dispute is about. The volunteer shouldn’t have to know. The volunteer may tell the editors to provide the background information.

In this specific case, it turns out that the issue that had not been adequately discussed before being filed here had to do with a particular translation of the Bible, that is, Christian Scripture. Which translation of the Bible to use has long been a contentious issue among Christians. It wasn’t clear from the filing that that was the issue. It was only apparent after some research, and only to a Christian.

So a question is: Can a volunteer accept a case where they know nothing about the subject matter? For instance, can a non-Christian moderate a case about a translation of the Bible? The answer is yes. The moderator should instruct the editors to explain what the issue is, even though, or because, that requires work by the participants, especially if the issue is obscure, like a theological distinction, or quantum mechanics, or a remote part of the Earth. You, a volunteer, don’t need to understand the issues in advance. The editors need to explain them to you. After all, they also need to have the article explain the subject to readers who came to Wikipedia because they are looking for knowledge that they don’t already have.

I didn’t moderate a dispute about Four Noble Truths, not because I am not a Buddhist (which I am not), but because of previous involvement with the parties. The article on Four Noble Truths should explain them to a non-Buddhist reader; after all, a Buddhist reader already knows about that basic Buddhist belief.

So you don’t need prior knowledge of the subject to moderate a dispute. Insist that the editors explain it. (And if there has been no prior discussion, the case isn't ready for this noticeboard.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation!  One more reason I closed the case was because it didn't seem to concern one particular article on Wikipedia. I couldn't even find a mention of the article in concern at the limited discussion. Nevermind that, thanks once again for these suggestions. Yashovardhan (talk) 06:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Yashovardhan Dhanania and other volunteers - If you can't figure out what a dispute is about, check the recent posting histories of the filing editor and any other editors. However, if it isn't obvious what a case is about, it almost certainly should be closed, probably for inadequate discussion, and maybe for other reasons also such as not being a content dispute or being a rant or whatever.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Topics that really can't be understood
Now, if you want to look at a Christian religious topic that really is difficult to understand, look up filioque. The issue of whether to use this word (or its equivalent in another language) has divided Christians for a thousand years, but even most Christians don't understand what it is. Fortunately, it isn't at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll just hope that this doesn't come up as a DRN anytime soon. Yashovardhan (talk) 07:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to put it in the incomprehensible historical context, think of how much harder it would be to discuss whether to use this word (or its equivalent) if you couldn't even agree on what language to use for the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer needed
Is a volunteer available for moderating the dispute at Talk:Malayalam#Debates on_the_origins_of_Malayalam_-_June_2017? New volunteers who have experience in other dispute resolution processes are also encouraged to volunteer here. Yashovardhan (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Two Thoughts on Closing Premature Cases
There have been a few cases closed recently where I agree that the case should have been closed for inadequate discussion. However, I would just like to suggest two comments about what can be done in specific cases where there has been inadequate or no prior discussion. While we would always prefer to see a dispute discussed constructively, we should also give the best possible advice about what to do when discussion is not working or not happening. First, today a case was closed in which it appears that an IP address (unregistered editor) was making or reverting edits and was not discussing. The best advice in that case is for the registered editor to request semi-protection at Requests for Page Protection. Administrators will almost always grant short semi-protection when an IP is not discussing their edits. Occasionally that will get the IP to discuss on the talk page. Unfortunately, usually it won't, in that most disruptive IP editors simply are disruptive IP editors, and will either go away or wait for the semi-protection to expire. If necessary, the registered editor can request semi-protection again. It is the IP editor's loss that they aren't contributing anything. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Second, I would advise volunteers, in closing cases in areas that are subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions, that, although taking a dispute to any conduct forum, such as WP:ANI, is always a last resort, it is "less futile" to take the case to Arbitration Enforcement than to take it to WP:ANI or WP:ANEW. In my opinion, WP:ANI deals reasonably well with vandals, trolls, flamers, and other types of editors who are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. In my opinion, it does not do well at dealing with POV-pushers or stubborn editors, at least unless the POV-pusher or stubborn editor engages in personal attacks. Arbitration Enforcement often deals relatively quickly with such editors, often by giving the editor a unilateral topic ban. In any case, my advice is to recommend Arbitration Enforcement as a last resort when it is available. It is only a last resort, but it is a better last resort than either WP:ANI or WP:ANEW. (If you don't know if a dispute area is covered by Arbitration Enforcement, just ask, but a volunteer may have mentioned it. Some of the areas that are covered by Arbitration Enforcement are subject to battleground editing because they have been real battlegrounds historically, such as the Balkans, Israel and Palestine, India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, and Eastern Europe.  Arbitration Enforcement prevents refighting World War One or the Arab-Israeli wars.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that these options be kept in mind when giving advice on what to do with disputes where discussion is failing. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Why did a serious edit got reverted with no reason given?
Why did a serious edit on OnePlus (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OnePlus&action=history) get reverted without even providing any reason? The revert was done by username Emir of Wikipedia.
 * User:D.Novosibirsk - Discuss on the article talk page, [[Talk:OnePlus. Sign your edits.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Moderators Needed
We have a few cases that either need moderators or need an experienced volunteer to decide that they should be closed (e.g., as failed, or due to lack of response). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Robert, I have left a note on some disputes for parties to respond. If no response is received in 24 hours, any volunteer can close them. Yashovardhan (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)+
 * Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Note to Volunteers: Check and correct usernames
All volunteers do a lot of hard work already and this might sound more work but it's important to save time here. When checking whether all parties have been informed or not, also check if the account actually exists. If not, check the discussion and try and correct the username if possible. Make the changes at the list of participants, the section headers and then you might wanna inform them about the thread as well. This saves a lot of time as you don't need to wait for the filing editor or any other concerned party to do the same. The mistake is usually spelling or copying the signature as the username. Just don't change it to any valid username unless they've actually discussed the matter. Remember that edit summaries are not counted as discussion. This is also a reminder to all the filing parties to make sure they use the correct username. Thank you for monitoring these issues., Yashovardhan (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator for August-September
No one has signed up to take up the coordination of DRN for the term August 2017 - September 2017. Interested volunteers must be active at least during this month and list themselves at Dispute resolution noticeboard/Co-ordinator in the respective section. Changeover to happen on the 1st of August. Yashovardhan (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Moderator needed
Is a volunteer willing to moderate the discussion at Talk:2017 Finsbury_Park_attack#Back_to_the_original_question_again?. It appears that most of the parties concerned have filed a summary and they are willing for moderated discussion. Yashovardhan (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Already taken this one on board. It's pretty clear cut in my mind though. Steven   Crossin  04:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment to Add to Banner ?
Should a comment be added to the banner at the top of the page to please avoid editing the article in question after filing a case and while waiting to see whether it is accepted? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

In the case in point, to be sure, it seems that the article was reworked by an editor who was not requesting dispute resolution, and this just left things not in their original state. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is a wiki that anyone can edit. Sagecandor (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * when requesting dispute resolution, editors should not continue editing the article as it could be considered disruptive. Of course, anyone can edit the wiki but not when there's no consensus for that change. Yashovardhan (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support but I doubt if it'll be of any help. Considering that we have on bold at the top instructions to inform all editors yet most filers tend to ignore that. However, this one should also include "except when reverting obvious vandalism". Yashovardhan (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: We have a process for forbidding any and all edits and improvements to a page. It's called full protection. It can be requested at WP:Requests for page protection. Sagecandor (talk) 04:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Full protection is used only when there's edit warring. Here we don't want to stop uninvolved editors from making any changes. We just want the editors involved in the DRN to refrain from editing the page. This is because the change they are planning to make is under discussion. Of course, if they ignore requests and continue to make the changes, it's considered edit warring and then we can request page protection and/or sanctions on the editor. But that's a conduct issue and conduct issues are out of the scope of this noticeboard. Yashovardhan (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This type of change could effectively allow any editor who wishes, to put a STOP to any and all improvements to a page. Simply name another editor as a party to the Dispute resolution noticeboard filing, and voila ! Magically, those users would then not be allowed to improve that page. That is wrong. Sagecandor (talk) 07:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We'll, we are only requesting them.. not forcing them. And a case like what you described would be closed almost immediately. Oh, and can we have a proper conversation instead of using notes and comments to state our points. Yashovardhan (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "only requesting them" ? "not forcing them"? Please re-read above. Sounds like forcing them. And why would such a case be closed almost immediately? Sagecandor (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I would instead propose a banner that could be added to a page to indicate that there is currently a discussion here and that editors may wish to review said discussion before editing the page in question. DonIago (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we already have a template for that. It's not used much though.. I'll find it and share here. Yashovardhan (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, here it is, I think? Template:Under discussion?
 * I was talking about DRN actually. But I guess it could see some changes. Yashovardhan (talk) 07:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Another Thought on Closing Cases
It occurs to me that, in closing cases that are not ready for moderated discussion, volunteers should consider whether the requesting editor is very new and would benefit from some instruction as to the ways of Wikipedia. In particular, I tried to be informative in closing the request about BioArt. (Well, I made it into a request about BioArt, which is what was intended. It wasn't properly formatted at first.)  Maybe we, as volunteers, should consider whether we need to try to explain to new editors what talk pages are for. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Idea seems reasonable. I think we should consider this. Steven   Crossin  01:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup, this is a great idea and all volunteers should follow it. Should we add it to the volunteer instructions? Yashovardhan (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think so. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I have added it on the volunteer page here. Have a look and feel free to edit it as necessary. Yashovardhan (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:ANI
A reminder. If any volunteer notices that a complaint has been filed at WP:ANI concerning disruptive editing of an article that is the subject of a dispute here, please close the dispute here. This noticeboard does not handle a dispute that is also pending in another content forum or in any conduct forum. This of course also applies if a case is filed at WP:AN, WP:ANEW, WP:AE, or WP:AIV. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I've modified the header slightly to make this more explicit. Just for the record, the reason that this was somewhat vague is that after we created DRN we originally only closed cases if there was other content DR pending. A few volunteers started closing cases when there was conduct DR pending and it caught on to the point that it became the norm here some time ago. It's long past time that we made it clearly official, and now it is. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yet Another Closing Comment (YACC)
I had to close a case as a conduct issue in which the filing party stated that they were acting on behalf of the subject organization. By the way, there is no need to take a case to the conflict of interest noticeboard if the conflict is clearly stated. Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Dispute resolution RfC
Hello. You are invited to comment on this RfC, which seeks to reform certain aspects of Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. Biblio (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Not About One Article
Maybe I should ask this question at a more frequently watched talk page. A common issue at DRN is that the filing editor says that an issue is not about one particular article but a dispute between two editors across multiple articles. Often it is worded so that it could easily be taken to be a conduct dispute, a complaint against the other editor. However, I generally don’t want to refer an editor to a conduct forum when there are content aspects that can be resolved (and sometimes resolving the content issue causes the conduct to be ameliorated). (Anyway, WP:ANI very seldom accomplishes anything except against trolls.) Also, sometimes, when the problem is that the filing editor is making multiple unsourced edits (or other questionable edits) to multiple articles, and another editor is following them. In that case, the problem may be described as the second editor hounding the first editor, but they really have found it necessary to clean up behind them.

Sometimes, if the issue has to do with a group of related articles, there may be an appropriate WikiProject. Sometimes there isn’t.

Occasionally it is almost impossible, even after research, to figure out what the problem is.

Do other volunteers have comments? Do I need to go to a more popular project talk page? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that the above RFC seeks to address more or less the same questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Re Battle for Caen
I come here based on advice on the moderator's talk page. This case was opened by a neutral editor, who was trying to help. When I was notified of the case I summarised the issues very concisely, as requested. I then waited for days for the process to continue. I was busy on the weekend with family issues and I didn’t get back to Wikipedia until Monday morning. I then discovered that the moderator had resumed the process on the weekend, and had already closed the case, without there having been any actual discussion. This issue has been thrashed out exhaustively at the article talk page, but has gridlocked on the interpretation of WP:NPOV. This DRN process could have helped, but now the problem is continuing. Is there anything that can be done? Wdford (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer page enrollment and the DRN case summary page
Please remember to use the correct format (i.e. instead of ) when indicating members of the volunteer resolvers (WP:DRVOLUNTEERS). 2 users had the latter template recently causing them to not show up in the "Last Volunteer edit" column. Hasteur (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Dispute Status
If you are a volunteer and choose to mediate or moderate a dispute (1) thank you (2) please set the status from New to Open. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Timely Responses, Closing, etc.
There have been some recent concerns raised about the closing of threads when participating editors have not responded within 48 hours. I would like the comments of other volunteers and experienced editors. I will comment that this noticeboard is intended for the resolution of relatively simple disputes quickly, and that allowing breaks from participation will extend the time for resolution of disputes. I don't think that it is fair to volunteers to expect that volunteers will ping the editors on their talk pages; the watchlist capability exists precisely in order to enable editors to know when pages of concern have been updated. Do we need to update the general instructions for this noticeboard to remind participants more clearly of the obligation to watchlist this noticeboard and respond promptly? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There are number of disputes that haven't been updated by a moderator for the past few days. May be another volunteer could step in? Naesco (talk) 08:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Have the other editors been active? If the other editors don't participate, the moderator isn't necessary.  If the other editors have participated, and the moderator has not, then you could try pinging the moderator via their talk page.  It can cause great confusion if there are two moderators, which can be worse than having none, and almost as bad as having hostile editors (which is our whole mission to deal with).  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

DRN archive template
Please do not subst the DRN archive template. It apparently sometimes does weird things. Today it hid a case. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

DRN regarding Cherno More's history
A DRN request about PFC Cherno More Varna was closed as premature. While it is true that the discussion at the article's talk page is not recent, there has been extensive discussion at bg wiki talk page, including a third opinion by a bg wiki user/admin. The last comment there is from 29 July 2017. See also the archived discussion at WT:FOOTY which is also recent. Since all users involved are Bulgarian and article is basically a translation of bg:ПФК Черно море (Варна), I believe that we have already discussed this issue at length and haven't reached consensus.

Do we have to repeat the same discussion in English before resorting to DRN or the one at WT:FOOTY (in English) can serve as basis for a dispute resolution attempt via DRN? Yavorescu (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Bulgarian wikipedia's proceedings don't have binding precedence on English wikipedia's process. If all the editors involved are active in the BG discussion, why is it a dispute here?  Probably best to run the discussion  again just to have a clean version (and potentially let more editors contribute). Hasteur (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, every Wikipedia is formally a separate entity. The dispute was brought here, because  started an edit war at  while the corresponding Bulgarian article has remained intact (as there is a resolution for the bg wiki article from 2016).  I would find it awkward if we have to repeat the same discussion in every language, then resort to the relevant procedures for every Wikipedia. It would be exhausting and not very fruitful (needless to say, it is certain that the users involved do not speak all of these languages). Would you advise to use a different dispute resolution method, if DRN is not applicable? Yavorescu (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No. It appears that you are asking how to apply a dispute resolution that some of the editors can't read.  It appears that you are asking how to enforce a dispute resolution in Bulgarian on the English Wikipedia.  You don't have to use DRN.  Read the dispute resolution policy, and it lists several ways to resolve a dispute.  In this case, the dispute was filed without even any mention that there had also been a dispute in another language.  If you actually believe that an editor is being disruptive or tendentious, then you can report that editor at WP:ANI for conduct, but be sure to read the boomerang essay first, and be sure that you describe the problem clearly; don't just make a report and complain about it being exhausting and not fruitful.  If you want more constructive advice, you can ask at Village pump (policy) about multilingual disputes, or for general advice at the Teahouse.  However, each Wikipedia is a separate entity.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the advice. We'll run the discussion again in English on the English talk page. My personal goal is to reach consesus; I don't want to report an experienced editor. (I mentioned in the DRN request that most of the discission took place at the Bulgarian talk page, but apparently forgot to mention that it was in Bulgarian language. Thought it was self-explanatory.) Yavorescu (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It is self-explanatory that discussion on a Bulgarian talk page is in Bulgarian. (Many Anglophones, on seeing Bulgarian, will assume that it is Russian, since Bulgarian is written in the Cyrillic alphabet.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Pagelinks
Has anyone else noticed that the is working a little differently than it previously did, at least when the original page being referenced is an article talk page? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Has anyone else noticed that the pagelinks template is working differently when the original page is an article talk page, and that in that case, the subject article page can't be referenced directly? I think that the template may have been edited.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It appears to have been fixed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Disputes Covering More Than One Article
There have been issues raised at this noticeboard recently which the filing party has said involve multiple articles. I would appreciate comments from other volunteers about how to deal with such disputes. First, these disputes have often been worded as disputes about an editor, as conduct disputes. However, we have found that often resolving a content issue can ameliorate any conduct concerns. The real concern that I have with multi-article disputes is that they really have to be about content. My thought is that we should be willing to accept such disputes, subject to the usual rules (be civil and concise, comment on content, not contributors) if the content dispute has been discussed at length on an appropriate WikiProject talk page. (If there isn't an appropriate WikiProject, the discussion may have been too disconnected, or the issue may be disconnected). Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it would be beneficial. These cases may be tricky but (1) I think we can handle them, (2) since it would be helpful for everyone, I think it is worth a shot --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Active disputes moved to archive
At least three disputes that were 'In progress' were moved today (Aug 6) to the archive. And at least one of them - Talk:Phys.org#Edits today - was waiting for a response from the moderator. Was it intentional or a bug? And how the disputes should proceed now? Naesco (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The"do not archive before" period had elapsed, most likely. You can always avoid it by increasing it manually. Regarding your cases, the only solution I can see is to manually un-archive them --Kostas20142 (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are moderating a case that will run over the Do Not Archive date, you should manually set its date to an estimate of when the case will be completed. When the case is closed, for whatever reason, it is a good idea to remove the Do Not Archive date.  Robert McClenon (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Just another brief word about this. DRN cases are designed to be completed quickly and therefore have a Do Not Archive date of only 14 days after listing. Once that date has been reached, the case will be archived if any 24 hour period passes without the case being edited. That's designed to keep cases moving. If you're a volunteer you should feel free to extend the DNA date, especially if the case gets a late start after initially being listed, and if the case typically has gaps of a day or two between responses. But cases should show continuous progress and should not be kept alive "just in case" someone eventually wants to make a response or continue the case. If the volunteer or a participant asks for a delay of a specific length — "I'll be out of town for 10 days" — that can also be a good reason to extend the DNA date if it's okay with everyone else. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Google Memo Closure
On the one hand, I was about to close the request concerning the Google memo, because there is a Request for Comments in progress, and an RFC takes precedence over other forms of dispute resolution, but another volunteer closed it. Thank you. On the other hand, I think that this was a case where the filing editor didn't understand how an RFC works. He said that the discussion was petering out. I think that he, in good faith, misunderstood, and thought that an RFC is meant to promote continuing discussion. It is meant to get comments, and discussion is optional. I have tried to explain to him. Sometimes we need to explain to an editor why we are closing a thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

DRN about International Anti-Corruption Academy
Dear all,

Following the DRN discussion here are some generally reliable secondary sources, all of them well-established news outlets that discuss IACA’s history and what the organization does. I hope they can be used to help build a more informative WP article about IACA.

Die Zeit (a leading German newspaper): http://www.zeit.de/2013/06/Antikorruptionsakademie-Laxenburg-Oesterreich (in German)

China Daily newspaper: http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2015-03/27/content_19923209.htm

Thomson Reuters Regulatory Intelligence (introductory part before the paywall): http://www.complinet.com/global/news/news/article.html?ref=187256&bulletin=spotlight&region=_10170

These sources mention the following:

IACA is both an intergovernmental (international) organization and educational institution (China Daily).

IACA was set up in 2011 (China Daily), i.e. it was formally established as an international organization in that year. But IACA was launched in 2010, as the Wikipedia article currently states and as confirmed by the reference in Die Zeit to IACA’s inaugural conference in 2010 (see paragraph 6).

The China Daily article mentions three of IACA’s four main founding partners - the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the European Commission's Anti-Fraud Office, and the Austrian government (it should also mention Interpol too, as the UNODC press release does).

IACA offers academic degree programmes and standard and bespoke training (Thomson Reuters), including the Master in Anti-Corruption Studies (Die Zeit, paragraph 2).

IACA’s Dean and Executive Secretary is Martin Kreutner.

Sorry for not providing these sooner - was away for 2 weeks.

Best, Richard.eames (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

...and let me again declare my COI regarding this page - I'm IACA's Head of Communications. Richard.eames (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi - here are some additional reliable secondary sources on which further content can be derived for the article about IACA:

FCPA Blog (widely read in the anti-corruption and compliance community): http://www.fcpablog.com/blog/2015/2/25/whoa-enforcement-and-compliance-are-breaking-out-all-over.html -please note that this article was written by the FCPA Blog's own Publisher and Editor, not by a lecturer on IACA's programmes

Content here: IACA specializes in training mid-career anti-corruption professionals. It runs short and mid-length training courses and programmes. In 2012 it launched a two-year Master in Anti-Corruption Studies programme.

Radio France Internationale: http://www.rfi.fr/emission/20170517-bulgarie-retraites-plus-pauvres -click on the play button in the top right corner of the main photo, and the IACA story starts at 04:36

Content here: IACA has trained professionals in approx. 150 countries to date.

Best, Richard.eames (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Have pasted these sources/content into the IACA article talk page. Richard.eames (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Moderators Needed
We need volunteer moderators for three cases. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If "The Exodus" is accepted I can moderate that one.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Editors with Limited English - Question About How to Address?
I have a question about how to conduct dispute resolution at this noticeboard. I will be asking for advice from User:TransporterMan, the dispute resolution coordinator, and at Village Pump (miscellaneous). The question is what dispute resolution volunteers should do when one of the key editors, especially the filing party, is clearly having so much difficulty with English that it is hard to understand exactly what the issues are.

Editors who have limited ability in English are common, and normally are not a problem. If they create articles that have problems with grammar, the articles can be tagged as needing copy-edit or can be copy-edited. If it is possible to know what is being said, one can normally improve the article. If an article is so badly garbled that it is difficult to know what the subject, if it is very short, it can be tagged as A1. A longer article that is so garbled that it is not possible to know what it is about to improve it can be tagged as A7 if it appears to be about one of the kinds of things for which A7 applies, or otherwise can be PRODed. Also, sometimes it is appropriate to suggest politely to an editor that Wikipedia would benefit more if they would edit the Wikipedia in their first language. (The English Wikipedia has more than five million articles. Other Wikipedias have fewer.  In a crude quantitative sense, they have greater need.)

However, if an editor is one of the principal editors in a content dispute and has difficulty in explaining what they want, what do we do? This has happened from time to time, and I don’t know of a right answer. The default answer seems to be that they are ignored. If they have a poorly stated complaint, they don’t get it resolved. If they make contentious edits, presumably to try to add information or to change the point of view, the edits can be reverted, but just reverting edits is less than ideal. Are there any ideas? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This is one of many problems which falls into CIR (and, indeed, is listed there under Some common types). We need to help people with language difficulties or with other CIR issues, but they have to very much sooner rather than later "get it." When, even with some coaxing, coaching, and help they don't get it, require hand-holding at every step, or, worse, become either bellicose, paranoid, stuck on a POV, or otherwise disruptive then they need to be ignored first; if they make enough of a pest of themselves a trip to ANI may be in order. Usually, in my experience, it's not necessary to go that far because they become frustrated and fall away, but on occasion it is. While we want to encourage all comers to be editors, the sad fact is that through no fault of their own some people just aren't capable of doing so, at least not within the framework with which we have here to deal with them. Wikipedia is not therapy or a language school. Having said all that, one thing that a volunteer here can do if he cares to go to the bother and effort of doing so is to try to enlist another editor who is fluent in both English and the cradle language to serve as a mentor/translator, but I wouldn't do even that without trying to get the disputant's consent first along with a clear statement of what the cradle language is. I can speak from experience that finding such editors can be extremely difficult, especially finding one who wants to commit to taking part in an extended mediation. And if the dispute is in an area where there is a great deal of ethnic, regional, or racial conflict finding one who can be trusted by all parties to be neutral can be even harder yet. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 01:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest:
 * Asking the editor who doesn't speak English so well to write everything in the language of comfort (either instead of English, or in addition to English). Machine translation may be more effective, and the original will be useful when you're trying to figure out what the native language is.
 * Finding someone who can read that language, and ask them to figure out what the request is. This is a much smaller task than asking for long-term mentoring, and sometimes it results in very fast resolution of the dispute ("No, you may not include unverifiable information in that BLP").  Special:ListAdmins at the Wikipedia for that language is usually an effective way of finding someone who speaks a given language; for more common languages, then checking Translators available, contacting a relevant WikiProject, or even leaving a note on the talk page of the article about that language might find you the help you need.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You can also ask at the Wikipedia of their country of origin if an English speaking volunteer could help here at the English Wikipedia. Just a thought but for the most part I agree with TransporterMan.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Phys.Org
Godric: Is this discussion still in progress, and is progress being made? It has been going on much longer than most disputes here. If it is still making progress, good. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Addition to the DRN Header
I would like to add something to our current DRN header to help assist editors that request DRN mediation or participate in a DRN discussion. It might also be of help to add it to the actual filing form in some manner to remind editors of how Wikipedia discussions are supposed to work and that DRN adheres to these guidelines;


 * From Talk page guidelines; "Maintain Wikipedia policy"

'''There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Pay particular attention to Biographies of living persons, which applies to talk pages as well as to articles: "Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." '''

I think that this will, hopefully, make some things more clear to even more experienced content editors that might have less experience with talk page discussions. The addition of the BLP policy may actually be even more essential to keep editors in check about making claims about living people, perhaps with the additional DRN comment that; "Editors are living persons, some use their actual names. BLP policy may apply to claims made by an editor against another editor as well as other pertinent policies regarding DOXing". Of course, we wouldn't use the reference.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I made the bold edit to the header as follows;

Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: '''it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. "Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.'''

I figured it best to keep it as simple as possible but still contain the most information.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Question
What was the BLP issue? I didn't see it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * For this? This wasn't about a BLP violation but about talk page guidelines so participating editors would know not to abuse the discussion with arguments that continue without a basis in Wikipedia guidelines and Policy. But the BLP portion was there already except for the part about groups, but since we handle so many disputes about various groups that could fall under the BLP umbrella (religious, cultural, political) I did add that some groups may be included and linked directly to that portion of the policy to be clear. It is a case by case basis so I felt that the wording worked with the link.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Question About BOM Dispute and BLP
I saw a warning from a volunteer moderator that something might be a BLP violation. I have not been following the BOM dispute carefully, but on looking at it I didn't see anything that resembled a BLP violation. Was there a specific allegation about a contemporary scholar? What was so serious that it required a warning about requesting sanctions? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Did not see the notification for this.


 * Full discussion was here.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this a different issue?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have not seen any other issues of BLP at the DRN since the above discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

USS John McCain
Is any other volunteer willing to take over the John McCain dispute? It appears that one of the editors may not be satisfied with my moderation, or perhaps that I am not maintaining proper neutrality. Can we have a different moderator? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Closed. Thank  you.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Microsoft Hearts
Will another volunteer please take a look at the case and advise me as to whether I am more or less right (and the fact that there had been a stable version for a long time does not change the fact that there is now a content issue) or whether I may be mistaken, and also at whether another volunteer should take over? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think DRN tries to bend over backwards too far and too often. Having a neutral noticeboard is great in principle, but in clear cases such as this dispute, those pushing non-encyclopedic original research should be politely told they are going in the wrong direction without dragging it out. Since the issue was brought to DRN, three uninvolved editors have commented at Talk:Microsoft Hearts (including myself), and the three comments express the strong opinion that the section should be removed. No one has challenged the three new comments at article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The two editors you claim have taken sides with you "strongly" are citing a point that I proposed as a point of agreement in my first post on 17 September. My position works to build consensus, while your proposal seeks polite condescension carried out by a volunteer.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Umm, I did not claim anything about "sides", and the comments from the three uninvolved editors are self explanatory with each saying the text should be removed. Consensus is not relevant when the text is clearly original research and unsuitable for Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Since this is "clear", you should be able to identify the antecedent(s) for "the text". Unscintillating (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Aside from the matter of whether the section that has since been removed contained original research, there is still a question of consensus. User:Unscintillating appears to be saying that there is a historical consensus for retaining the section.  Other editors are saying that there is a current consensus for removing the section.  How does consensus can change apply?  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are suggesting, by placing your question in a discussion I've been having with another editor, that I have been ignoring your point that consensus can change. I didn't mean to ignore your point.  Of course consensus can change.  As per WP:EDITCONSENSUS, emphasis added, "[An] edit...revised by another editor without dispute...can be assumed...a new consensus..."  The raw vote count might be used to argue that the win-rate paragraph no longer has consensus, but see WP:PERPOLICY, which shows that even with a one-sided raw vote count, it is policy that applies, not a raw vote count.  Again there are seven paragraphs and a table.  It has never been the case that one policy argument was going to apply to this entire section.  The WP:CONSENSUS policy goes on to advise against "fight[ing] to implement a particular preferred version immediately,"  Unscintillating (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And indeed, you don't answer; possibly first because the antecedents are not clear; and second, if you clarify, it weakens your assertion. Unscintillating (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Dispute on iOS v11 wikipedia
Dear Wiki admin - Recent release and update of iOS 11 for iPhone 6, 6s, and 7 have generated a lot of issues for iPhone users and widely reported in news media including BBC UK, The Telegraph, The Independent, The Australian, Business Insider, etc. A paragraph describing the issues reported and citations to sources were provided by me earlier on.

Editor Guy Harris reviewed, edited and approved the writeup. But, Darius robin has repeatedly removed the whole section. His action contributes to censorship, and taking sides with APPLE. Wikipedia is for the public and Wikipedia does not take sides on any companies. One would expect his improvement on the article, not total censorship.

As such, I would like to request help from Wiki admin to look at this case and allow the public information pertaining to iOS 11 issues to be presented in iOS 11 wikipedia page and block further censorship from editor Darius Robin

Thank you all.

Fellow007 (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop trying to get me blocked.
 * Firstly, I’m not taking sides with Apple, so get that out of your brains.
 * Second, whatever "write-up" you added is already mentioned on the page. I removed it to avoid double-mentioning the issues. Whatever else I removed is just unsourced info. Example, the battery problems people are suffering is already mentioned here. Whatever else (about that sudden shutdowns etc.) are unsourced.


 * So please stop blaming me of being an Apple employee. Darius robin (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Beauty and the Beast (2017 film)
DRN is, by its nature, a welcoming place for editors who want to try to resolve content disputes in good faith. However, I had to warn one editor that they were abusing DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Request for New DRN Coordinator
I'm asking that someone step in as the DRN coordinator as the one we currently have has barely participated in the process and was only active in disputes for one week in July/August. I have volunteered as I'm supposed to start on December 1 but am not opposed to someone else (who is actually active) filling in for the rest of the month. The current coordinator didn't even contribute in their first month, and seemingly used this role to gain additional user rights in order to bolster is attempted RfA. I gave him the opportunity to pass it along to someone else, but he declined that offer, showing poor judgment in the process. I also think it would be prudent to confirm those who wish to fulfill the role, by having active DRN volunteers participate in a discussion on each person wanting to volunteer for DRN coordinator, just so that this doesn't happen again. Nihlus 18:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC) It is true that I have handled only one case until now, the one that mentioned above. However I have contributed by carrying out other tasks. I have closed some cases, started a roll call, created a mass message list to make the conduction of future ones easier. And I am 100% sure that I carried out all of them during the first month of my term (October-November 2017). Regarding my intentions, I most definitely didn't not take up this task to strengthen an RfA, since I didn't even mention that I am a DRN coordinator in it (it was brought up only by in their oppose !vote). I didn't do this in order to gain further permissions (mms) either. I requested this permission only after conducting my volunteers roll call (why to wait so long before requesting it if this was my intention at first place?) in order to make further relevant tasks by me, or why not a future coordinator, easier. That's why I created the list as well. In any case, if the rest of the volunteers feel that I should be removed, for the best interest of the noticeboard, I will undoubtedly accept it and pass the roll to another volunteer. Regarding the second proposal, I would like to request a separate discussion, since discussing two entirely different topics will not be really productive. --Kostas20142 (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not buying it. The only thing you managed to do was bolster my suspicions that I pointed out in my first comment above. I do not believe you are active enough in this area to be reasonably aware of the cases that are ongoing or experienced enough. That alone is enough for me to ask you to pass it along to someone else; the other comments just give me more reason to request the change. The pragmatic course of action you should have taken was to give it up without forcing others to partake in a discussion; this causes me to question your judgment skills as well. Pinging recently active DRN volunteers: and .  Nihlus  20:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I really can't see why not conforming with your opinion and waiting for further input instead is inappropriate or demonstrates poor judgment. And I don't really think that I force anyone to do anything. Thank you for pinging them. --Kostas20142 (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * At no point did you "wait for further opinion," so please do not get it twisted. You outright declined my suggestion. Nihlus  20:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * indeed, stating that I may reexamine it after the implementation of my roll call. Please also note that you are the only one that requested it until now. I would have acted differently if this wasn't the case. --Kostas20142 (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, that's not waiting for further opinion; do not attempt to spin it any way other than what it was. Thanks. Nihlus  21:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I generally didn't take cases during my stints as coordinator, but I did try to keep up with the items listed at Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Coordinator. However, even then, it sometimes happened that new enthusiastic volunteers would sometimes come in and frequently get to those tasks before I could get around to them (eh, Robert? ) and when that happened I would sometimes slack off and let them handle it. So long as someone is generally keeping up with them at least every day or two, I generally think we're okay. If Kostas says that he's willing to do that, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for the rest of his current term. Frankly — and I'm not commenting on whether or not Kostas is too inexperienced by saying this and, indeed, I express no opinion on that issue — so long as someone is keeping up with the coordinator's duties, I think the bigger problem that we've encountered here is inexperienced volunteers who take cases without having any idea of how to handle them properly than administrative tasks going undone. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The inactive but "responding to roll call" list of users and inexperienced volunteers is something I plan on tackling next, but this is about Kostas20142. And people getting to cases before he can is not happening here, as I have deliberately not touched a case until the very last moment as to give others a chance to participate. If someone can't or won't do the volunteer tasks while they are a volunteer, they really shouldn't be handling the coordinator tasks (especially when its'questionable if they are even doing those). Nihlus  21:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't really want to get involved in a negative exchange between volunteers. I hadn't known who the coordinator was for the last few months, and maybe I should have tried to follow up on making sure that we had a coordinator who was doing something.  I am aware that we had a volunteer a few weeks ago who apparently was more interested in quarreling, but that volunteer eventually got blocked as a sockpuppet.  Now:  User:Nihlus, User:Kostas20142 - What is the issue anyway?  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator Discussions
I would like to suggest that future discussions of who is to be and who is the coordinator should be here, in general, and not on talk pages. Is there a reason why they shouldn't be here? Also, I will admit that maybe I should have been more aware of this in the past few days, but exactly what is the complaint anyway? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue is Kostas20142 is not active in his role of coordinator and used it to gain additional user rights (MMS). There are other more active users (you and myself) that would be more qualified for the role until December 1, which is when I (originally) planned on taking on the role. Nihlus  22:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed that Kostas was the coordinator, which further illustrates that maybe we should be discussing this here. User:Kostas20142, what have you done as coordinator?  I haven't seen you make any notes on cases, for instance.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * One of the first rules of Wikipedia, and one of the rules that all DRN volunteers must keep in mind, is assume good faith. However, we all agree that that isn't quite enough, and that it is also useful to assume good efforts and to make good efforts.  Unfortunately, this appears to be a case of two good-faith volunteers having somewhat different concepts of how much housekeeping is needed.  The worst possible result of different concepts of how much housekeeping is needed is domestic violence and homicide; fortunately, we aren't there.  Now, can we remember that we are all trying to keep the same kitchen clean?  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty confused by your (second) statement, especially the bit about domestic violence and homicide... However, AGF is not a muzzle to use on those which wish to criticize. Also, see WP:AAGF. I think my point is Kostas has done nothing besides anything that gave him additional user rights. Nihlus  23:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Nihlus - This is a dispute about how much housekeeping is needed in a kitchen. My point is that, while disputes about housekeeping may seem trivial to an outsider, they can become ugly and violent, and I don't want what has started as a dispute about housekeeping to become ugly.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there anything in particular that you, User:Nihlus, think that User:Kostas20142 should have done and did not do? Is there anything in particular that they should do and have not done?  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't want to pile on, but let's go through the list:
 * Maintain the list of DRN volunteers. ❌ There are multiple "volunteers" who have never edited a case that have responded to the "roll call".
 * Send out participation drives when necessary. ❌
 * Help new volunteers learn DRN practices, procedures, and customs. ❌ How can he when he doesn't participate?
 * Check in with participants who are yet to weigh in on discussions to make sure that they have been notified; if participants have not been notified remind the filing editor that it is his or her obligation to notify them or, alternatively, notify them yourself. ❌
 * Help answer any process questions or concerns. ❌


 * Ensure all disputes are handled in a timely and efficient manner. ❌
 * Lend a hand with controlling incivility, if needed. ❌
 * Flag any disputes that need attention. ❌
 * Refer complex/lengthy disputes to the Mediation Committee, if appropriate. ❌


 * Watch for and correct edits which break the page format or interfere with the maintenance bots. yellow check.svg One malformed report fix and one status template update.
 * Update Dispute resolution noticeboard/Coordinator/Current when taking on coordinator spot. ❌ Nope.
 * Modify this task list with tips, suggestions, and additional tasks gained through one's experience as coordinator. ❌ Adding his name to the list of those who have shiny new rights is really the only one.


 * It will be best if you are active as a volunteer at DRN for at least the month preceding the date on which you are to take over the coordinator position so that you are familiar with the current issues, trends, and pending cases; if you are unable to do that, please consider posting a note to the DRN talk page asking for someone who has been active to take the position in your place. ❌❌ Inactive for the entire month and a half prior. His inexperience also shows in the editing.

I hope this demonstrates my concern. Nihlus 01:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course it would, if it was a bit more accurate;

Let me also remind you of something: ''Note that these tasks are not exclusive to the coordinator. Any volunteer can do any of them at any time, it's just the coordinator's job to insure that they get done as needed''. So if another volunteer carries something out before I do, I can't really see the problem. If something stays undone for some time, then it is a problem. --Kostas20142 (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * maintain the list of volunteers : The implementation of my roll call is still pending. In the meanwhile, I fixed one entry because the volunteer had been renamed.
 * flag any disputes that need attention: Was there such a need? If you thought so, you could have done it yourself.
 * Ensure all disputes are handled in a timely and efficient manner. : I don't find any problem here either.
 * Lend a hand with controlling incivility, if needed. : if needed
 * Modify this task list with tips, suggestions, and additional tasks gained through one's experience as coordinator.: Not everyone really add tasks. I have created the list I mentioned above, and added it to the page. The fact that when someone (I didn't check out whom) added, I also added myself thinking that since we have 2 users that can help.out with this, why not to list both, is not disruptive or so, is it?
 * Inactive during the first month: my roll call was sent during it, and even the task you present as "the only I carried out" took place this period. Remind that it is only 5 November?
 * Help answer any process questions or concerns. : Don't remember anything unanswered /not handled.
 * There seems to be a pattern of shifting the focus away from you and onto others. If you thought so, you could have done it yourself. I did do it myself when you didn't, and that is why I am here. why not to list both, is not disruptive or so, is it? I don't remember ever referring to it as "disruptive". if needed The whole ordeal with was handled mainly by me and a little by Robert. Trust me, it was needed, and you didn't do anything except change their name. Did you check to see their previous edits and lack of experience? No, because you didn't check or perform the actions expected of the coordinator. You left it others: example 1, example 2. So the only thing you can really say you have done is utilize the additional user rights that I am specifically criticizing you for grabbing so quickly. What exactly are you defending at this point? Do you honestly thing you have been active enough? Why did you want to be coordinator? To help? To gain more rights? The fact that you didn't speak to anything else in your latest response makes me believe that you agree with them or just didn't have a semi-decent argument for it. The fact that you are stonewalling this is unconscionable at this point.  Nihlus  07:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously I wanted to be the coordinator in order to help, but I suppose, based on your statements, that you are not willing to believe this. However, if I wanted to just get an additional permission, why to decline passing the roll to someone else once things got tough? I would retain mms anyways. Apparently, I made mistakes and the one you describe (not intervening) is one of them. However you cannot expect someone to be perfect on their first term, can you? But since I was at least not disruptive, I feel that I deserve a fair chance to improve. And that includes abstaining from making assumptions on my intentions. --Kostas20142 (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to believe what I see, and I do not see that in any way. Turning this around and creating a false dichotomy of perfect vs imperfect is not helpful. I have stated numerous times what I think the problem is, and being "perfect" is not one of them. Stop turning this discussion to something it is not about. The line is not one of disruptive vs not disruptive or perfect vs imperfect; it's active vs inactive. You should have never been coordinator in the first place given your inactivity for the month and a half before your supposed start date. Please provide your thoughts on the additional information I mentioned above as Kostas has clearly demonstrated an additional lack of solid judgment at this point, and I grow tired of talking in circles. Thanks.  Nihlus  20:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not creating any "false dichotomy"; nor am I trying to turn the discussion to something it isn't or to something it should not be. The discussion's topic is whether I should be substituted as a coordinator or not. And I most definitely stick to it. I mentioned the "disruptive" part just because I believe that since it has not been the case, and I am willing to improve, my substitution is not necessary. And I am tired of hat collecting claims and assumptions about my intentions but again, here I am, discussing with you. --Kostas20142 (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And you cannot really claim lack of solid judgment based solely on something in which you are involved as well (this discussion)--Kostas20142 (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I most certainly can. However, I am not going to talk to a wall in this case. Had you wished to have improved, you would have done so when I mentioned it on your talk page; however, since then (8 days ago), you have only made more superfluous edits on things tangentially related to the DRN (basically, the shiny awards and rights). You have done nothing else. Nihlus  21:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait a moment please; the decision to award the level 4 award to Robert McClenon was taken by me and way before  you started all this. And I am pinging  for confirmation. And seriously?? Recognizing a volunteer's significant contribution and dedication is "superfluous"? --Kostas20142 (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Or maybe the tip I added? You even listed it in the tasks a coordinator should carry out!--Kostas20142 (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Especially so given that you have remained inactive in the main DRN areas. Nihlus  21:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * no further comments on superfluous part, really. For the rest, there is currently only one active case (handled by you). And there are no further tasks that need to be carried out right now. Regarding the volunteers list, I will first implement the roll call and then take care of it. What else do you classify as the main DRN areas? --Kostas20142 (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to answer as I have no wish for you to continue as coordinator in any capacity. Nihlus  21:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

This is incredibly unseemly. We're supposed to be the editors whose neutrality and consideration can resolve disputes. If we cannot resolve this kind of matter within ourselves without the kind of churning that is taking place here then we have totally failed in our mission. The fact that this minor matter has become as protracted and disruptive as it has makes me utterly lose confidence in either of you as having the discretion needed to participate in dispute resolution. Stop, just stop. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 23:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, User:TransporterMan - To recycle a metaphor that I used above that confused everyone, this is essentially a dispute about housekeeping in a kitchen that is resulting in dishes being thrown and broken. I thought that I owed a slight apology to this noticeboard when I warned an editor for tendentious filing, but this has been out of line.  We should be setting a good example, not showing other editors how to have a content dispute with conduct aspects.  I am hatting this entire dispute.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your notion that DRN volunteers are prohibited from participating in disputes in any manner. Not only is that not feasible, it's kind of ridiculous to even suggest it. Had you participated a little more and actually demonstrated a viewpoint that actually addressed the topic at hand, perhaps this could have gone another way. And you can stop with the dramatics of "utterly losing confidence" as I have handled cases without problem; there is no correlation between being a party in a dispute and being able to moderate one as a neutral party. On top of this,, you asked questions that I actually answered, so I don't understand why you are trying to come off as something you're not (or that you didn't participate in this discussion). We are certainly permitted to have a dispute on the conduct of another editor, especially when that user is the "coordinator" of the DRN. However, this is not the DRN, so the rules of content vs. conduct have no place here and trying to muzzle such discussion is way out of line, volunteer or not. If both of you don't wish to provide an actual opinion on this matter or don't see any problem with the material I provided above, then please say so. I'd rather not waste my time any further. Nihlus  05:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Dispute
''Note: I've moved this to the bottom of the talk page, as per convention.  Programming Geek talk to me 14:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC) ''

I would like to seek help and I think the current DRN volunteer Nihlus should not be involved in this iOS 11 dispute coordination. Please read his writings and reply. I believe there is a conflict of interests here and he should not served as a dispute resolution coordinator. Fellow007 (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because you don’t agree with his opinion, doesn’t mean we need to change the moderator. He has knowledge of Wiki rules and basic criteria to include the info on the page. Just to let him know: . Darius robin (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

2p - I think 's issue with is that Nihlus is giving guidance on the reliable sources guideline. While the role of the moderator is to facilitate discussion (not a third opinion), I don't think Nihlus was out of line at all when he said that the sources are not reliable, because to be frank, they're not. , participation at DRN is voluntary (although a good idea). I think that Nihlus is giving good advice, but if you have a fundamental disagreement, then an RFC or third opinion may be the way to go. I do hope you can work this out.  Programming Geek talk to me 14:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If a discussion here has failed, there have already been at least three opinions, and third opinion is not available after a discussion here has failed. RFC is available after a discussion here has failed.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I've closed the discussion as Fellow007 is turning it into a time sink and a discussion of whether or not people will accept his position, rather than focusing on content and coming to an agreeable solution. I'm not going to waste my time or anyone else's for that matter. I will not entertain baseless accusations of conflicts of interests, either. Nihlus  17:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a procedural note: The exact form of moderation here at DRN is largely up to the volunteer. While mediation is the most common form of moderation, opinion-giving and other dispute resolution techniques can be in a volunteer's toolkit as well. (And, just let me note, in real world mediation, opinion-giving by the mediator is altogether routine, though it's a bit more complicated to use here in the way that it's used in the RW.) Heck, I even did a content arbitration by agreement once here, and you don't get any more opinion-y than that. In this case while it was a close call, I support Nihlus' decision to close the case. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In my experience, if one of the editors starts objecting to the moderator or claiming that the moderator is biased or that we need a new moderator, the dispute will inevitably be closed as failed. The real problem may be with the moderator, but more likely is either that the objecting editor is stubborn or that two editors are stubborn or that the parties are simply too far apart.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)