Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 32

Multiple reverts and unecessary threats on Raw Foodism article
Hi, I've had my edits on Raw Foodism article reverted numerous times and two users have insulted and threatened to report or block me, even though I've been following wikipedia's policies and haven't insulted anyone in the process. I wonder which dispute resolution venue would be more effective on this case. The disputes have happened on the articles Raw Foodism, its talk page, my talk page and another user's talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Raw_foodism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Psychologist_Guy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_foodism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikieditor1377. It refers to a couple of edits which I intended to do on the page since it is missing many reference and science backed information on the subject of raw food diet and effects of cooking on nutrients. One of edits I've tried to add was about the effect of cooking on vitamin A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B9, B12, C, D, E and K, as well as minerals potassium, calcium, magnesium and sodium. I've used references from Harvard, Oxford and Healthline for that edit. I've also added to the talk page updated information on acrylamide and its links to human cancer published last year on Genome Project and the International Reseach on Cancer and was immediately threatened for no particular reason. Many thanks. Wikieditor1377 (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Your POV edits are not in accord to WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS. you have received multiple advice and warnings from other editors about this, basically users have told you about this but you are ignoring the reasons which have been given to you, why the links you suggest are not appropriate. See the talk-page discussion and the discussion on your own talk-page. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I think I can clear up the problem user:wikieditor1377. The problem is not a disagree meant on if your source is valid. Nor is it a problem with what they are saying. The problem is- they are stating raw facts. You are adding your own analysis about what those facts mean for the raw food movement. It’s not a matter of convincing people you are right- because the correctness is not in question. The problem is Wikipedia does not allow original research. By adding your own analysis to the unconnected research- you have commuted original research. If you can, instead, find another article that connects this information to the raw food movement- you will have better luck. As to where to go for dispute resolution- right now- nowhere. They are indeed correct- your claims are not yet supported by secondary sources even if the capacity for that support exits. You have to find someone else who made the connection and post their research. I hope that clears things up. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Noting that non-ECP editors and IPs cannot participate in ARBPIA related discussions
Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles explicitly forbids IPs and non-ECP editors from participating in these, yet most editors don't realise this. What can we do to make sure that this is clear? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I read that, and I presume that you do as well, to mean that IP and non-ECP editors can participate on the talk page of an article coming under ARBPIA, but cannot take part in a discussion here at DRN. That means, in effect, that those editors have no dispute resolution options. As a longstanding member of the DR community here (and one of the founders of DRN), I was unaware of that. Before addressing it, however, I'd like to confirm with you that we're both reading this the same way. Are we? Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Later: I've done some further checking and I'm now convinced that is the proper interpretation. —  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Vito Rizzuto.
Me and User:Vaselineeeeeee have been discussing on the talk pages of Vito Rizzuto, John "Sonny'' Franzese and James Vincenzo Capone. Primarily on Vito Rizzuto. We've had discussions about the meanings, and the user had a misconception about the true meaning. I got to an extent of explaining based on the Wikipedia's policy about the meaning, the starting anecdotal page and yet the user is reprimanding and trying to bury the topic telling me to drop the stick. He presumed nationality had to do with POB.                Nationality. but it's from a global classification to one's nation. A nationality is attained by 'birth' or 'naturalization' is stated clearly. And he's coming up with his own meaning based on 'National perception'.                 Citizenship. Responsibilities mandated internally on a citizen of a country, stretching down to state, city. The rights, taxes and such.

This is going nowhere with the two of us. So I urge you to please tell the user to concur as this is not about an altercation, but about the need of correction. You can review the talk page. Jack Morales Garcia (talk) 10:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC) JMG.
 * This editor just wants to be "[told] that [he's] right and [he'll] fix this." Have a look at the discussion for yourselves. Not sure the editor is here. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Is that right? And where did you attained those factual information from? Jack Morales Garcia (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Request to stop hatting closed threads
Hello. Could I please make a request to stop the practice of hatting closed threads? It makes it impossible to locate specific discussions by keyword using either an external or internal search. Such a search would return the keyword and the DR page, but since the discussions are all hatted, it's impossible to find the correct one without un-hatting all the discussions on a single page. Viriditas (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

What to do about ARBPIA requests
Please see the discussion in the last section above. Due to the ARBPIA decision in that case certain editors, specifically IP editors, editors who have fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure cannot file for or participate in dispute resolution here at DRN (or engage in other forms of DR such as RFC or 3O). DRN is built around a model of having all editors involved in a dispute participate here so that a consensus can be reached that will "hold" when taken back to the article. This restriction substantially interferes with that model. Off the top of my head, I see the following possible solutions:


 * DRN modify its rules to not accept ARBPIA cases at all. Since these cases tend to be complex, divisive, and often have multiple participants, our ability to successfully resolve them is probably fairly low to begin with, so it might not make much difference just to not take them in the first place.
 * DRN modify its rules to not accept ARBPIA cases when one or more disputant is prohibited from participating here. Frankly, this seems to me to be too much of a burden to put on our volunteers to always check this.
 * DRN accept or reject ARBPIA cases as usual without taking the restriction into account, but require such cases to be closed without further action if any action is taken by a a party, volunteer, administrator, or other user to exclude any listed party from participation. This is practical but risks having a consensus reached here second-guessed or disregarded if parties to that consensus shouldn't have been participating here in the first place.
 * File a motion with ARBCOM to exempt content DR or DRN in particular from those restrictions. I'd be willing to undertake filing such a motion if that's what people think we should do.

What's everyone's thoughts about this? Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Enforcing the ARBPIA4 remedy is an administrative matter. If an administrator wishes to enforce the provision, they can take the actions permitted by the decision and do it themselves on a particular editor. I don't think anyone else needs to, or should, do anything here. That being said, #2 is fairly easy with the gadget for tooltips (hovering over a name shows their edits/join date). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Late Follow-Up on WP:ARBPIA at DRN
First, I apologize for not having read this talk page for a month, mainly because the project page has been busy. I will reply to User:TransporterMan and User:Doug Weller. Without having read the detailed ArbCom ruling, my first thought is that a restriction on less-than-EC editors is stupid. However, I think that certain changes to the rules of DRN to exclude certain cases are a good idea, and cases involving read battlegrounds tend to lead to battleground editing that our volunteers should not get dragged into. I don't object to an exclusion of all Palestine-Israel cases. If we are excluding certain types of disputes, I would also like to exclude all disputes filed by paid editors. We haven't had any such cases in recent months, but in recent years we have had cases in which paid editors who had used Edit Requests to request non-neutral edits were then using DRN to re-argue their requests. I would also like to exclude cases with more than 6?10??12? editors, which are better suited to RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with both of you about ArbPia cases, I don't think DRN is suitable for high-profile disputes. I suspect the same goes for some IPA disputes between Hindus and Muslims where feelings run very high. Paid editors, yes. And those with too man editors. Probably 6 at the most. Doug Weller  talk 16:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Most unhelpful
A volunteer moderator describing a user's contribution to a Talk page as "trolling", when it clearly engages the topic, is not showing good faith. Dismissing the user's contributing as being too combative, when other editors made direct attacks on other users, without any sanction or comment from those involved, shows that this is a biased and partisan one-way standard to censor critiques. As for not using the Talk page, it's kinda hard to use when your comments keep being reverted in one-sided fashion. Please don't volunteer for dispute resolutions unless you are will to show consideration to all sides. 73.159.229.5 (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible to formally request further steps?
Having had the dispute resolution closed for going on for too long, I am wondering whether there is any formal way to request further steps be taken, re Drag Race UK S2? Spa-Franks (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is already a formal process in progress, there is an active discussion about suggested ways to resolve the issue. There are very experienced administrators involved - at least allow them time to comment on the outcome of the discussion. The involved editors haven't even attempted to come to a compromise yet. Additionally the dispute was closed because there is already admin involvement and its a bigger issue than what would be solved at DRN. It was already taken to ANI which is why we are where we are. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 16:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for Volunteers
- There are three cases that appear to be ready for volunteers at least to look into neutrally. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

An Essay
I have written an essay which is intended to address editors who have vague or unfocused complaints about an article. Any volunteer is welcome to tweak it. Any volunteer is welcome to use it if they have an editor who has complaints of a nature such as "all points of view must be presented" or "the article is non-neutral". See Be Specific at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Notification policy
DRN policy states:

I believe this policy is fully appropriate for matters such as AE and ANI, but not for DRN, where a ping of involved editors on the article Talk page is more appropriate, as such a ping also serves to advise other editors who were not involved in the dispute, or were not previous Talk participants, but might later choose to participate, so they can see that the DRN topic was opened, which they would not be aware of if only individual editors involved in a dispute were notified on their user Talk pages. Article Talk ping notification is more transparent and efficient. soibangla (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I can see that as, perhaps, a reason to include an article talk page notification in addition to the individual user talk page notifications, but I would oppose that as being a replacement for the current system which absolutely insures that everyone currently participating in the dispute has received notice. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that individual user talk page notification should remain a requirement. Article talk page notice should continue to be strongly encouraged.  I notice often that the filing party has said, in the discussion at the article talk page, something like, "I am taking this to DRN."  So it often happens anyway.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I read this, as my notification was on the talk page, and I was unaware of the user talk page requirement.2601:205:C003:6300:7143:2B0E:39C0:7011 (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Status Table
Some of you may have noticed that the table that displays the status of disputes is not being updated. The table is being maintained by a bot, and it seems that the bot has stopped performing that task (but is performing other tasks). I am in the process of asking the bot maintainer to get the bot working, and also of finding another bot maintainer to get another bot to run the existing code if the first maintainer is on extended wikibreak. In the meantime, ignore the table, because it is being ignored by the bot. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Pavol Hnilica
Hello - what is the next steps? 1) the challenges on the sources 2) I need someone to oversee the pages related to Our Lady of Medjugorje that have been listed. 3) There is no response from Slp1 and it is looking like we need to find one expert, neutral editor to help us with this controversial page. Any suggestions? Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Red Rose 13, User:Governor Sheng - I will be replying on the project page shortly. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for notifying. --Governor Sheng (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

What to do with unwilling co-editor?
This is about the 'Sri Lanka Easter bombings' dispute. Correctly closed, as the other involved editor simply did not fill in his/her part; but also when I informed him on his/her talk page (s)he reverted that request for input, with explanation 'stop spamming me'.

BUT, I am pretty certain that if I once again apply the changes I that think are essential to the original story (s)he will revert again. And we don't want rollback wars in Wikipedia. I think I've done all within my power to come to a dialogue, but it seems to fail. Shall I simply do the change to the text and see what happens? But what in case of a rollback war? Thanks in advance, Erikdr (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Erikdr - Read this essay.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do my best. As it's only 1 revised section, probably first publish that on my own User page and refer to it from the talk page for this real item so that everyone can read in 'sandbox' form. And again invite comments, with putting on the talk page of the other editor (his/her choice to revert again). Then publish for-real after 1 week of time for commenting. And if that results in an edit war, time to escalate sadly. Tnx, Erikdr (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I hope it's okay to ask in this section as I'm probably facing a similar situation. If I get no response after a while longer and the request expires, should I attempt something similar? There has been protracted discussion, "cycles" of major edits and reverts before so I think asking for discussion again will probably be fruitless as everything that's still up to discussion isn't getting answered even after the 3O and other users' agreements. I'd rather not take it to the WP:ANI. What about a RfC? FelipeFritschF (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Walt Disney Snow White
BabyWeems (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC) If you look up Hamilton Luske and Snow White Wikipedia says that Hamilton Luske was chosen by Walt as the supervising animator and was the first animator hired for the film. If you look up Snow White wikipedia does not even recognize that Hamilton Luske worked on the film. Hamilton Luske was selected by Walt Disney to create the character Snow White.

Urgently need willing mediator
Require mediator on “Adirondack Railroad” page, with specific reference to Edit History page and my Subject is page entitled “Adirondack Railroad”, with specific reference to my site-updating/correcting edits of 6/3/21. (See “Edit History” page for 6/3/21.) The site is very out-of-date, and my corrections over the past two months have all been swiftly removed by unknown editors I cannot locate to speak to. (I am NOT computer-literate for a site like Wikipedia). Would a willing mediator please call ASAP me at (redacted) (after 11AM EDT) or email me (redacted) Thank you.

Donald L. Pevsner Attorney-at-Law (pro bono publico) 16ConcordeSSC (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This page is for discussing the operation of the dispute resolution noticeboard, and not a place to request help with a dispute; please post to the main dispute resolution noticeboard. I have also redacted your contact information for your protection; Wikipedia business should also be conducted on Wikipedia itself when possible. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Technical problem with a new dispute
I created a new dispute Bret Weinstein. I used Request dispute resolution button and followed the steps in there.

However, the dispute, on the page, is showing up inside of an already closed dispute Conor McGregor

Is it just me? Is this some kind of a visual bug? Or is something wrong with the code or the Request dispute resolution wizard for creating a dispute? Dylath Leen (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I fixed it by adding the "DRN archive bottom" template. Somebody had omitted that one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

BMI dispute
I'm uncertain if further discussion or a mediator is needed on this content dispute: Boundaries between categories. It mostly involves two editors, myself and another. Two editors from WP:3O and another editor got involved. Dispute is over the range of numbers that identify each BMI category, whether the upper limits should be rounded up to account for 29.999 gap ("25-30", "30-35") or not to avoid confusion with inaccurate and overlapping 30 ("25.0-29.9", "30.0-34.9"). The reliable source (The SuRF Report 2, p. 22) has ("25.00-29.99", "30.00-34.99"). As far as I see, the two 3O editors and I agree that rounding isn't necessary and that we should stick with RS and one decimal precision is good enough (29.9). The other two editors say no wide consensus reached and want rounding (30). Jroberson108 (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

WP TEA # Barry Sherman
Dispute Resolution August 2 and 3 2021 re: Cullen328. I am in the dangerous heat wave in western Canada when I returned to my mail the discussion had been closed I did not have the chance to reply and was not aware of any specific end time for discussion. I'm grateful to most of you who responded but not the users NarkyBlert, Ymblanter, and in fact I prefer August 1, 2021 user Valjean comment removed from the conversation including latest assault by user 78.26 on August 3, 2021. My concern was fairly simple I do not appreciate attaching false information regarding myself. There has been an uncertainty where feedback received welcomed and me others do not, if I edit an article for improvement at some point in future it should be feasible. Two issues here are delete the offensive and inaccurate user comments I mentioned above and to confirm that I am welcomed as a Wikipedia user or not.--Longel (talk) 03:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This has to do with my interactions with this editor who claims to be a psychic who can solve murder cases. I was polite to them at the Teahouse and on my talk page, even though they repeated their nonsense over and over. I then asked them to stay off my talk page and removed a subsequent post. They then reported me to WP:ANI where no one agreed with them and at least one experienced editor said I should have blocked them as not here to build an encyclopedia. Now, here we are at the Dispute resolution noticeboard to discuss a non-existent dispute. Not a single other editor has concluded that this editor is making any good points, because the core of their claims is lunacy, even if well-intentioned. I think this editor should be blocked indefinitely under the principle that competence is required to edit this encyclopedia productively. I would prefer that another administrator take that action, lest someone speculate that I am unfairly biased. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Bullying
Hello admins, is this case Talk:Yin Yin Oo eligible for Dispute resolution noticeboard? Taung Tan (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * No, it is not. Filings at DRN require extensive talk page discussion before being filed and that has not happened in this dispute. If an editor will not discuss, consider the suggestions made at DISCFAIL. DRN will also not accept disputes concerning an editor's conduct or behavior, such as bullying. Disputes about behavior should be taken to ANI after *carefully* reading and following the instructions there. BTW, DRN is not operated by administrators, just regular editors. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Request
Hello. I hope this is right place to put this message.Could you please do me a favor and tell your ideas about Thanks--Namaka (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Addition to Ground Rules?
I think that I will be adding a provision to WP:DRN Rule A stating that no editor may file a conduct report at WP:ANI or at Arbitration Enforcement while a dispute is being mediated, and that the dispute will be failed if a conduct report is filed. I just had to fail the Shusha dispute because the two principal editors both reported each other at Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry to see the way that one went. I think it's a good idea to note that ANI or AE filing will result in closing the case. I wouldn't recommend phrasing it as "no editor may file". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * We've certainly done that in the past, whether for filing at a conduct forum or filing in some other form of DR after a DRN case is pending. If you think we need to make it more explicit, Robert, you have my support. Though I do agree that putting it in terms of a prohibition on editor's conduct isn't a good idea. It should be something more like a simple statement that we don't take or continue cases which are pending in other venues and the filing of a case elsewhere while a DRN case is pending will likely result in the closure of that DRN case. (I say "likely" because if someone files a 3O request while a DRN is pending, it's probably the 3O that ought to be removed, not the DRN. You might want to think about what happens if the filing is at a venue which isn't explicitly a DR venue, such as RSN.) Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * RSN is a special case, in that it is possible that DRN may have a dispute that involves the reliability of a source. In that case, my view is that DRN should put the case on hold while awaiting advice from RSN on the source, and then resume the DRN case.  I think that I once closed a dispute at DRN when there was a case at NPOVN, which is a specialized content dispute, and I think that BLPN is also a specialized content noticeboard.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:DRN archive bottom
Template:DRN archive bottom has been nominated for merging with Template:Archive bottom. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Esnoga controversies dispute (Dutch)
Hi,

As a new contributor I'm not sure if this is the right place for a dispute about my contribution in Dutch. My apologies if it is not.

My contribution to the article about the Esnoga regarding a worldwide known controversy has been removed by another contributor. After an extensive discussion this contributor is not responding anymore.

You can find the discussion here: https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg:Portugees-Isra%C3%ABlietische_Synagoge

I like my contribution to be published again because I don't see in anyway how it would be in conflict with the Wikipedia policy.

I appreciate your help. Ielatfan (talk) 07:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think they failed to convince you that you gave an account of the controversy by painting just one side of the story and using only related (the synagogue) sources.
 * But the English language Wikipedia has no power over the Dutch Wikipedia. The Banner  talk 10:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Ielatfan, I believe this is best discussed on the Dutch Wikipedia. A good starting point is nl:Wikipedia:Overleg gewenst. I can assist you with posting there. Dajasj (talk) 10:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Dispute involving IPs who do not discuss on talk pages
There has been an ongoing dispute regarding album track listings on Live! Blueswailing July '64 since 2017, which has recently escalated. I was hoping DRN might be able to help, but none of the IPs involved have discussed the issue as required on the relevant talk pages (see Talk:Live! Blueswailing July '64). Advice on how to proceed would be appreciated. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't see the FAQ Q13 when I added this, so please disregard if there's nothing to add. With the latest IP edits, it looks like this heading to ANI. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Ojorojo - One way to deal with unregistered editors who do not discuss on a talk page, if they are editing an article page and not discussing (known as ninja editing), is to request semi-protection of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Page protection was one of the options that was explored a few years ago. Unfortunately, it doesn't work for long-term disruptive editors who take long breaks. By the time any action is taken, there isn't enough recent activity to justify it. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Closing a DRN Filing
When closing a DRN case with a general close, either as poorly filed, or as a general close after discussion, please, at least for now, enter 'closed' rather than 'Closed' on the DRN status line, as in:

There is a limitation to the bot that displays the summary of cases, and it seems to be case-sensitive. It isn't a serious problem, but it is just a minor issue. Let's keep the bot happy while the bot is acting like a bot. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Broken headers?
Why are active discussions collapsed into the closed discussion text? —C.Fred (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I've asked at Template talk:Archive bottom, since it appears that that is the template missing the necessary code. —C.Fred (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

First volunteer action
Hi! I just did my first action by closing the latest request. I'd appreciate any and all feedback on that, whether on my justification or wording for my general close. Excited to learn! :) A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 19:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Your wording was fine. I rearranged stuff for you, though, and removed the "Do not archive until" comment and reminder. The "DRN archive top" tag and comments goes after the line identifying the filing editor so the filing editor's name can be seen in our archive without having to open the collapsed part. By removing the do not archive until lines, the case will be archived after a couple of days, not two weeks after the last action. But all in all, a good job for your first time out. Thank you for volunteering! Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just saw your edit,, thanks! I'll remember what I did wrong for next time (I'll limit myself to closing malformed/premature requests for now until I get my sea legs). A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 20:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Content disputes and edit wars with IPs who do not answer talk page messages
Since 13 February 2020, there have been a series of disruptive edits and edit wars on Opera (company). Please see the talk page for more details.

My concern is that once the semi-protection is lifted, the disruptive edits will resurface. Should increased or extended protection then be requested if the behavior resurfaces in a months' time? Can you please help with this? Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Heartmusic678 - If you want to request dispute resolution, you may file a request at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This is the talk page for DRN and is for discussion of the dispute resolution process, such as by volunteers about mediation.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Case with a single party
Hi! An editor has recently made a request for a case here after being recommended to do so by at the relevant article (LGBT in Islam). Should the request be closed, or how can the page be edited to account for adding the other party? I'm unsure how to do so since requests are created by a bot (or some automated process) from what I understand. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 19:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * User:A. C. Santacruz - I am a week late to respond, but will try to answer your question anyway. If a case lists only one editor, a volunteer may, in their judgment, either close the case, or instruct the filing editor to add and notify the other editors.  That particular case was closed because it was also pending at WP:ANI.  The filing editor was then topic-banned, so that the case would have been closed by a different door anyway.  If there is some defect of form, I think that volunteers may use judgment as to whether to close the case without prejudice or to tell the filing party to correct the case filing.  Only listing one editor, and only listing some of the editors, are both common problems.  (There are a lot of problems that are too common.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I did a thing!
I made a general close here. Like @A. C. Santacruz did earlier, I am going to say I appreciate all feedback on whether that was appropriate. casualdejekyll 16:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * please remember to leave the template that indicates who filed the case request above the closed DRN top. You can see in our archives how this is done. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 19:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan
Hey, I, uh, accidentally dipped my toes into Dispute_resolution_noticeboard and the water I found turned out to be burning acid. Can, uh, somebody (other then Robert McClenon since he appears to refuse to touch it as well).. deal with that? casualdejekyll 23:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * To be fair, if one never dives into a more advanced case, one will never learn. Still, I know there's more experienced volunteers out there who can handle this better... If nobody picks it up in a few days I'll take it just because I don't want to see it get closed from nobody wanting to deal with it casualdejekyll  23:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I forgot that Robert McClenon has kind of been singlehandedly carrying DRN for since the beginning of time. (How did you fail two RfAs??? I honestly am very surprised you've no mop yet.) Regardless, I'm pretty sure I can't make the situation worse, so might as well dive in. casualdejekyll  19:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , I'd seriously advise against "diving in" to an area you know little about, that has active discretionary sanctions, and where in this particular case previous attempts at DRN cases were closed by ANI threads as a new volunteer to DRN. There's a lot of heat in that kitchen (if you'll excuse the metaphor) and it's probably better for you to learn how to moderate disputes in calmer cases. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 19:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You are not wrong. Nobody else is taking it! I've definitely looked at it and realized I don't even know where to start. I just don't know what to do. casualdejekyll  19:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's ok for requests to wait a bit before they're taken. I'm currently dealing with irl personal issues that would prevent me from giving it the attention it deserves, but if no one has taken that by the time the irl stuff is resolved I'll give it a shot. I'd like to think Ar/Az topic editors see me as uninvolved based on their reactions to my closures before. BTW,, you'd probably be useful at closure requests if you want to learn how to assess discussions from an uninvolved perspective. There are some closures that have been requested there for a while in quite peaceful areas if you wish to lend a hand. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 19:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Question before my second answer
Hello. A question before I get back to this tomorrow. According to this process, should I answer Allreet's "Cancel as many founders as we can and let God sort them out" second response directly or just respond to yours and your questions? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn - He never said anything of the sort? What are you talking about?Anyway, in DRN it's primarily about responding to the mediator - see "Your discussions should be addressed to the community, and to me as the representative of the community, not to each other unless I say that you may engage in back-and-forth." The reasoning behind this is that you've already tried talking to each other and it didn't work.  [Pinging @Allreet for transparency]  casualdejekyll  23:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Was talking about Allreet now wanting to cancel the Articles of Confederation as a founding document, the first constitution of the country for crying out loud, the blueprint for the first American government. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * While I certainly disagree with their position on the Articles of Confederation, you're outstepping the boundaries here a little. casualdejekyll  11:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , apologies if boundaries overstepped, but you did ask for an explanation. And if I may ask, are your good faith although arguably biased comments in your "Second statement by moderator, Founding Fathers of the United States​" (saying that Lincoln and his sourced analysis of the founding documents appear today as unimportant - and I will certainly try to change your opinion on that in my answer - weighing in on the Continental Association not being a founding document by "tallying" opinions and rough consensus seemingly without considering my opinion in your tally, and other arguably present thumb-on-the-scale remarks) normal for this process and for a moderator of the process? Your wording is nicely open ended but does somewhat concern me, especially if it is unusual for a moderator to advocate for one "side" so early in the discussion. If you think I'm going too far in labeling your statement possibly biased please read your words again objectively or even from my point of view if you can. I will address your comments in my answer, which may take another day or so to formulate because of all the balls in the air - which now include your opinions - and I ask that you please just be a bit more aware of your wording going forward, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not intentionally supporting any position, I am not trying to advocate for any side. I apologize for my wording making it seem that way. casualdejekyll  12:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just something to be aware of as you seem to be very interested in becoming a good moderator (although I personally do prefer a looser discussion, which fits your comments, as long as I have the opportunity to fully respond in kind) and admire your gumption in taking such a "jump in the deep end" chosen assignment. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, and I fully intend to challenge assertions about the Articles of Confederation as well, if not here then elsewhere. The Founding Fathers article, IMO, has been a nightmare for over a decade because of the failure to provide and adhere to sources. For example, in 2021, the page saw 200 or so edits, 3 new sources, none related to what I'm disputing. My concern is for the 1 million readers who visit the page each year, but it goes further. I believe the article is influencing other sources, to the point where the "record" may already be damaged. The only solution is to simply follow what WP:VER requires and hope our "scholarship" can catch up. Allreet (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

How to un-archive current disputes?
Hi! The bot archived the armenian dispute but I wanted to ping Zani one last time before failing due to time. How may I do this? A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 10:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Founders back-and-forth
you should create a back-and-forth section for comments between editors, as there are currently a number of editor.s replying within Robert's section which goes against the ruleset you established for the dispute. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 16:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, thank you for reminding me! I had intentionally allowed back and forth but forgot about that detail casualdejekyll  19:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Feedback from my first completed DRN
I just closed the Anti-Armenian sentiment DRN, it being my first one I actually moderated. I was wondering if y'all had any advice on how I moderated it or feedback for how to improve for next time. Thanks! A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 22:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

List of Largest Empires
- There is a history of various sorts of disruption including sockpuppetry about this article, and at least one editor has been topic-banned. If another dispute resolution request is filed, please either verify that the parties are all in good standing before opening a case, or just ignore the request. (There is no real harm done in opening a case with a sockpuppet or topic-banned editor, but it wastes everybody's time, including the volunteer mediator and the admins.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Per Robert McClenon above; can someone who knows how this page works please pre-emptively close the List of Largest Empires discussion; it was started in contravention of a topic ban, the matter has been handled adequately at WP:ANI (and we didn't have to block anyone! Yeah!), but the discussion needs to be closed.  I find this page to be a bit, erm, arcane, and I don't know the magic incantations necessary to not anger the archive bots.  Can someone that does please close the discussion?  Thanks!  -- Jayron 32 15:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Jayron32 - We had a race condition. It appears that you saw the case, and then were requesting the closure at about the same time as I was closing it.  (Race condition is the general computing and electrical term for what are known in Wikipedia as edit conflicts.)  In this case, there was no collision, and the desired objective was achieved.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What did I say in my post that made you think I was accusing you of impropriety (collusion? WTF?).  How did my general request for someone to close the discussion indicate to you that I was in any way accusing you of anything, least of all colluding with someone on, uh, something?  I'm flummoxed.    -- Jayron 32 11:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Jayron32 - No. I didn't think that anyone was accusing anyone of anything, except that you were accusing the filing party of topic-ban evasion.  I thought that you were asking for someone to close the improperly opened case.  I was saying that I was doing that as you were requesting that, and so were in agreement.  I thought that you were saying, "Please, someone, close this case."  I thought that I was saying, "Yes, I closed the case while you were requesting that it be closed."  And I think that race condition explains the problem better than edit conflict does; they are two names and two explanations of the same situation.  So there is no need to be flummoxed.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh. I see.  I didn't refer to "collusion".  I referred to "collision", which in computing can mean two people trying to access the same record at the same time due to a race condition.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Gosh, I'm an idiot. Much apologies to you, Robert.  I totally misread your post.  I need to remember to finish my coffee before I start editing first thing in the morning.  I've struck my post. Mea culpa, and carry on... -- Jayron 32 16:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Jayron32 - No problem. You misread a vowel.  I think that in Wikipedia, collusion is similar to meatpuppetry.  Collision can either be the result of an edit conflict or a trainwreck.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Automated tool for userpage DRN
Is there a tool analogous to ping to create the required user page DRN notices for each of a list of users? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

First DRN
My DRN on Peet's Coffee is my first. Would it have been better to do a RFC first? Is it too late to do that now? Anaxagoras17 (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Anaxagoras17 - If you want to do an RFC, you can do an RFC. In that case, I will close the DRN as pending in another forum, the RFC.  In the sequence of steps for resolving content disputes, RFC is usually the last step.  DRN is a step that can be done before an RFC, and sometimes it resolves the dispute without an RFC, and sometimes the DRN spawns an RFC.  So it is not too late for an RFC, if you want to do one.  An RFC will make it too late for DRN, at least until the RFC finishes, and then a new DRN has to be about something other than rearguing the RFC.  Your call.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Great. If a RFC usually comes after the DRN, then I'll just stick with the DRN for now. Thank you. Anaxagoras17 (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Premature close
I'm struggling to understand why you closed the WP:DRN discussion. You said "it is best for the full version of the article to be visible to the AFD participants", but the 'full version' was not the one being being discussed in the AfD (that was the reason I filed for DR to begin with), so the AfD has pretty much nothing to do with the content dispute save for the fact that the other parties automatically assumed bad faith because I was the nominator. The AfD will have no bearing whatsoever on the content dispute. Avilich (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Avilich - I closed the DRN because the AFD was still open. The AFD was closed about at the same time as I closed the DRN.  Your filing of the DRN was premature, because there was already a discussion at AFD.  My close was not premature, but your filing was premature.
 * The AFD does not discuss a version of the article. The AFD discusses whether an article on the topic should exist.  The AFD has decided that an article should exist.
 * As I said in the close of the DRN, you should discuss whether to trim or expand or split or whatever the article on the article talk page. If that discussion, beginning after the AFD is closed (which it has been), is inconclusive, you may file another DRN.  In the meantime, discuss on the article talk page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, the content dispute in the talk page was a different from that of the AfD; the former began only began after the AfD was filed, and it developed independently of the AfD itself, so the AfD's end had no bearing on the other discussion. But I give up at this point -- I have no further questions. Avilich (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Peet's Coffee
I must respond to your justification for closing this dispute without any attempt to mediate:

This has been discussed twice on the article talk page.


 * Yes, that is required before bringing to DRN.

It has been one editor vs many both times.


 * It should be about the quality of the arguments, not numbers. There should also be some respect for WP:COMPROMISE, WP:ATD, WP:QUO, and WP:PRESERVE.  Finally, the second time was an attempt to address some of the rejections the first time, but everyone knee-jerk assumes it was the same language.

Since the company is based in Germany, and has promised to make reparations, and is not actively supporting Nazi's- I agree that it is not relevant enough to put in the subsidiary's article.


 * Well I have cited five reliable sources that disagree about the relevance. The ethical issue arises in these articles from the origin of the money (forced labor).  Here's another article focused on a different subsidiary.  If reliable sources find it relevant, Wikipedia should too.

Before you bring this up again, there needs to be new information, or more coverage.


 * Five to six reliable sources is not enough? Also please do not punish me for seeking WP:COMPROMISE. Anaxagoras17 (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Anaxagoras17 - I apologize for not checking this talk page for more than a week. However, in looking at the case again, I agree that User:Nightenbelle was correct in closing it.  The other editors did not appear to be interested in discussion.  DRN is voluntary.  (Compelling unwilling editors to go through the motions of dispute resolution would be useless.)  The only mandatory dispute resolution process is RFC.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * User:Anaxagoras17 Sorry, I do not check this talk page often either. If you have comments for me, my personal talk page is always open to you. However, I do want to respond. My intent was not to punish you. Once it was clear that the other editors were not going to participate in this process, I attempted to give you a WP:3o such as it were. You are correct- its not about numbers- its about quality of arguments. However, if you are the only person who see's the quality of your arguments, perhaps the problem is not every other person, but that you are misjudging the quality of your arguments. Once again- its not the number of sources, its the quality. And other sources of higher quality deem the subject a non-issue. Even your sources do not support your idea that the issue deserves to be a larger focus. They mention the situation, but a couple of them brush it off as resolved. Very few German companies more than 80 years old do NOT have Nazi ties. Just like few American companies older than 60 years old do not have a history of discriminitory labor practices. The fact is- companies make mistakes influenced by cultural norms of the times. There are companies today who are doing practices that seem perfectly acceptable today, but in 50 years will be abhorrent. BUT companies can grow, learn, and do better. This company even went so far as to make reparations- which very few have done. Your sources do not show any evidence that those running the company today still support Nazi ideals. Until you have sources that prove that- focusing more on the Nazi history is undue. I'm sorry. That doesn't make what they did 80 years ago okay- but it does mean that you need to WP:DROPTHESTICK and find another way to edit. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

New entry automatically goes into closed discussion?
why? Or is it pending? Do you know the answer? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Dawit S Gondaria - What is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh never mind, it was closed because there was a related item open over at ANI (mutiple avenues). Thanks Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Humbly request to continue the dispute resolution
Hello User:Robert_McClenon,

I humbly ask that the dispute resolution for Lavender Oil is re-opened by either you or another volunteer. It seems a bit unfair that someone actively involved in the dispute can shutdown the entire moderated process by going outside of the process. For your consideration, I wrote a response to the three paragraphs you originally requested of me below:

>The first paragraph should state what they either want changed in the article or what they want left the same.

I would like the article to have an encyclopedic summary the findings of all relevant sources. And by "relevant" I of course mean the MEDRS guidelines, namely (A) published in a peer-reviewed journal (B) a meta-analysis (C) recent (five years old or less) and (D) related to the particular claim at hand (effectiveness of Silexan capsules). The article as I found it a few days ago had only a single source, the source was not (A) nor (B) at all, it was 90% not (C) nor (D) either. And of course way the Wikipedia article summarized the source is also pretty much the exact opposite way I would summarize the sources that meet (A) (B) (C) and (D). So I would like the changes I have made to stand as they do now and also add other relevant sources like possibly this and this and this.

>The second paragraph should state any questions about the reliability of sources.

These inquires are perhaps better for RSN, but in summary:
 * As far as this MEDRS pyramid goes, where does drugs.com stand given its nature outlined here:
 * Given that nature, is it an appropriate source for medical claims? If there are sources that meet criteria (A),(B),(C) and possibly (D) above shouldn't we drop the drugs.com one and use them instead?
 * Are the journals I linked above appropriate for the article? Namely "Scientific Reports", "Brain and Behavior", and "The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry".
 * Also I would like to get RSN's input on Phytomedicine. Wikipedia editor Zefr removed my citation to a study in it after the dispute became moderated because of its appearance in the {WP:CITEWATCH} list. However, Wikipedia editors put the journal on that list simply by tagging it as "Herbalism", so the reasoning as it stands it pretty original research-y and/or circular. Would love more input it or at the very least if this article this article was okay to use.

>The third paragraph should ask any other questions.

Is it okay to post these inquires to RSN now while the mediation is on-going?

Can I revert edits that were made to the article during mediation?

Assuming that RSN agrees that a journal is reliable, and a paper published in the journal meets criteria (A)(B)(C), and (D), what place does a wikipedia editor have to debate the paper's conclusions or the methodology they used to reach those conclusions? Does removing such sources for those reasons not fall under original research? I ask this because it seems to be a recurring theme during this dispute, an example of which you can read above in Zefr's dispute summary (whom prefers drugs.com for some reason? where the methodology isn't even stated.) and my response to it.

Thank you everyone that took the time to read this or help with this issue. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a commonly held view that DRN is a mandatory process and that editors can be required to use it. This is a myth.  DRN is voluntary.  Therefore if an editor declines to take part in DRN, we, the volunteer editors, cannot require an editor to take part.  It is clear from the fact that another editor has filed a sockpupet investigation that they would prefer to pursue a conduct issue than resolve a content dispute.  But it is up to them whether to mediate the content dispute.  Robert McClenon (talk) 06:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response.
 * Sure, that makes sense as all participation on the site is basically just voluntary volunteer work. However I would note two things: 1) the user did continue discussion with me even after filing investigation so I'm sure he is still interested in content discussion (and probably doesn't *really* suspect me of being a sock-puppet but wanted to err on the side of caution just in case). And 2) Zefr was not the only user involved in the discussion. There were at least four others. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 06:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't need permission from DRN to post an inquiry at RSN. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I went ahead and made one for "drugs.com".
 * Any suggestions on where I should go from here? Besides DRN that is... 50.45.170.185 (talk) 06:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

How to reply?
Hey, I am sorry to disturb you. I have something to state in reply to the second editor here. I am confused about how to reply and if there is any specific format for that? Thanks. Regards Satnam2408 (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

My Page Andres Velaz de Medrano, under attack in bad-faith
My article called Andres Velaz de Medrano is under attack by sockpuppets and people who are voting in bad faith. They have clearly proven that they have not taken a look at my sources and citations, and instead insist that no one will read it. My sources are readily available, the books and pages and citations are there. Please, History is at stake here. I am requesting for actual historians to chime in on the matter. These editors are clearly biased, opinion based and ignoring the facts and sources. I am urging all true and honorable scholars and people to support me, they attacked my page hours after posting a rough draft, they reviewed it without me requesting, I was given no time to prepare my work and had to immediately go into defense of my work. I will file a complaint but I'm not sure what else to do. These biased and opinion based editors just don't quit. Please help. Thank you. Geronimo Virula Medrano El (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Closing and Archiving of Cases

 * Can someone please explain to me where, if anywhere, the detailed rules for the archival of DRN cases are documented? It appears that there is certain housekeeping that is done automagically by bots.  This inquiry arises because an editor has requested that I reopen a closed dispute, and I realize that I don't know how.  In the past, cases had a line that contained a command to the bot Do Not Archive Until, and that date was in a format that could be understood by a human.  However, now the Do Not Archive date has a lengthy numeric date that isn't in date format but in some numeric form.  Then when a case is closed by a volunteer, User:DannyS712 bot removes the Do Not Archive line.  So if a case is closed, it is subject to archiving, and to prevent archiving, I would need to put that line back, but I don't know what the numbers mean.  So where is the behavior of the bots documented, and where is the detailed behavior of the template that creates a case in the first place, with a Do Not Archive date, documented?  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Robert. I'm no expert on best practices for DRN archiving, but you can prevent archiving using Template:DNAU, which turns into those cryptic coded messages you've been seeing. You use the template's first parameter to tell the bot how long, in days, to wait before archiving. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Is it ok to ask multiple volunteers of a third opinion ?
Thanks Medhekp (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Medhekp: A third opinion is only a third opinion if a third person adds their opinion to two existing ones. More opinions would per definition no longer be "third" opinions but instead outside opinions. You can use the other dispute resolution processes if you believe more input is necessary but no longer WP:3O (which explicitly requires that "only two editors are involved" by the time you request a third opinion). Regards So  Why  14:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * While you cannot use Third Opinion to get more than a third opinion, you can file here at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard for addition dispute resolution, but it will likely come in the form of assistance in negotiation not in the form of an opinion. To get input from multiple editors, the best method is to use Request for Comments, being sure to form your request and list it properly, but many RFCs don't draw much response and those that do can end in a "no consensus" result. They're also slow: Most RFC's run for 30 days. Comments in a RFC do "count" towards consensus (unlike a Third Opinion), so you also need to be careful what you wish for. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Medhekp - If you want the input of multiple editors, what you want may be a Request for Comments. One of the volunteers at DRN may be able to help you with an RFC.  That isn't a third opinion, but it may be what you are asking.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks a RFC was exactly what I wanted.Medhekp (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Removal of my post
Regarding the revert of my publicizing of my RFC here, I started a thread in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment titled, "Removal of my rfc publicizing from noticeboard". Per WP:SEETALK, I'm only providing notice about the existence of said discussion, because it is relevant to this  noticeboard. I post it there because it affects publicizing of RFCs at large. Also per the RFC page that said doubts about requests for comment should be discussed in the talk page. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Types of Cases
- I have started an essay listing some of the types of cases that I have seen that are filed at DRN that are not appropriate cases for DRN. Please see Types of DRN Filings. So far, it seems that I have listed 16 types of cases that DRN does not handle. Please discuss this list, either here, or at Wikipedia talk:Types of DRN Filings. Feel free to add types of disputes that don't belong here. Since this is cases that don't belong at DRN, I am also willing to consider renaming the essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Mediation help request @ article talk page
Greetings,

Requesting some systematic mediation help from some experienced mediator from WP:DRN;   @ Talk:2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault

Thanks

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Bookku - Follow the instructions on the project page, DRN, for requesting mediation. That is, press the button that says Request Dispute Resolution, and then enter the information in the forms.  Also, do not file requests at both DRN and BLPN, because DRN does not consider a dispute that is also pending in another forum.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Robert McClenon The disagreement at hand is going to need inputs of users from other forums like WP:Due/ Undue weight reliability of source information and of course BLPN.
 * It is close call so any way that is likely to be settled only with RfC. But we both main contesting users have habit of writing long and primarily I am seeking guidance in writing briefly and systematically the way it happens in DRN and preferably @ article talk page itself to avoid any forum shopping charges.
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Bookku - You do not need to request input from the project talk page for a policy or guideline. Regardless of whether you file a request at DRN, do not try to discuss a dispute in multiple places at the same time, because that is known as forum shopping and is disapproved of.  So either request DRN, or don't request DRN, and ask for help somewhere else.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for clarification and guidance.
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Where am I supposed to reply?
The Dispute resolution noticeboard page is far too bureaucratic for my comfort, I have no idea where I'm supposed to post not how to format it. At least Arbcom tells you to put all your posts in your own personal section, which nobody else is permitted to post in. Anyway, I'm being asked to clarify something that I thought that I had already clarified. I shall quote from the W3C's HTML 5.2 specifications for the four tags concerned: In all four cases, exactly the same text is given by WhatWG (although the section numbers differ): 4.5.5 The s element; 4.5.22 The u element; 4.7.1 The ins element; 4.7.2 The del element. Neither of these authorities refer to any of the four elements as either "deprecated" or "obsolete". The <strike ></strike> element, however, is shown as obsolete by both bodies (W3C; WhatWG), with the recommendation to use <del ></del> or <s ></s> instead. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 4.5.5. The  element: represents contents that are no longer accurate or no longer relevant. The s element is not appropriate when indicating document edits; to mark a span of text as having been removed from a document, use the del element.
 * 4.5.24. The  element: represents a span of text with an unarticulated, though explicitly rendered, non-textual annotation, such as labeling the text as being a proper name in Chinese text (a Chinese proper name mark), or labeling the text as being misspelt. In most cases, another element is likely to be more appropriate: for marking stress emphasis, the em element should be used; for marking key words or phrases either the b element or the mark element should be used, depending on the context; for marking book titles, the cite element should be used; for labeling text with explicit textual annotations, the ruby element should be used; for technical terms, taxonomic designation, transliteration, a thought, or for labeling ship names in Western texts, the i element should be used.
 * 4.6.1. The  element: represents an addition to the document.
 * 4.6.2. The  element: represents a removal from the document.

JSB Case
Hi, per your instructions here, I have a right to instate the edits as seen fit due to my timely participation in this discussion. After this, it would be I who has the right to file an RfC, with your assistance to ensure neutral wording.

After first stalling and stonewalling this DRN process, Srijanx22 has now directly undermined the RfC process by disregarding your instruction and rushing to start an RfC himself, which is clearly not neutrally worded, omitting the contradicting statement and sources presented here and in the lead. As I see it, this illegitimate RfC needs to be halted and nullified ASAP, and I think ANI is the immediate next step instead, after this procedural disruption. What do you think? As I see it, these are back-to-back breaches of procedure. Sapedder (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Sapedder - My first thought is that you are right, because it appears that they were waiting on the side in order to get the dispute resolution to fail. I will reply again shortly.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Sapedder - There were breaches of procedure. But please explain to me what is non-neutral about the RFC itself, because at WP:ANI, we will have to explain to the community what is wrong with the RFC.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , the RfC makes it seem like he is just trying to add a little content, without mentioning all the sources it is contradicted by, which is the crux of the matter. Srijanx22 wants to convey that JSB was a "leading figure of Khalistan movement [sic]", but still refuses to take into account the sources that contradict this, attached to the statement "he was not an advocate for Khalistan" (like they have basically been doing the whole time during the talk page discussion and the DRN). Let me reproduce some of them from the DRN below for reference, presented repeatedly in discussions to no answer:




 * These sources are not presented to participants in the RfC, where Srijanx22 is only presenting and emphasizing their own set of tertiary sources, while ignoring others per usual. He is not asking something like, "is this stuff okay to add in spite of these sources?" or something along those lines that demonstrates a genuine desire for input. His statement is "these are just facts, so pick it," when these "facts" are just POV that contravenes WP:BALANCE. They do not explain that my proposal is just the long-standing lead, or why I want it to remain (neutrality). They do not try to square the contradiction between the statements "leading figure of Khalistan movement" and "not an advocate of Khalistan" per BALANCE like the end of the lead attempts to, or even mention it. They do not explain why one set of (mostly tertiary) citations should be favored over the other (mostly secondary) to push their POV. To avoid addressing any of this, their go-to is to reflexively deflect to the term "militant" and act as if the subject is not already referred to as such, which is just adding a redundancy based on what he thinks the subject is "best known for," which is subjective.


 * After his deliberate obstructionism at DRN, he chose to disregard your instructions and ruling and created an illegitimate RfC, before we could formulate a proper one if we so chose. It has zero regard for presenting both sides for participants, who are kept unaware of the contradictory POV if they have not been following the dispute from the very beginning (which would be most potential participants). That alone would irreversibly skew the picture for any neutral users. Sapedder (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Minneapolis
Greetings. Robert McClenon may have closed our dispute prematurely same day (perhaps listening too hard to Magnolia677 who said he hasn't posted to our talk page since September). The Owamni dispute began in February 2022, on the article talk page when Magnolia677 originated the dispute. These links were included in the current dispute, and are re-pasted below: Robert, what say you? I don't want to waste your valuable time but nearly eight months have passed. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Minneapolis#Photo_of_Owamni
 * look at this ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Minneapolis/Archive_8#Photo_of_restaurant_kitchen <--- look at this
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Minneapolis/Archive_8#Owamni_continued
 * User:SusanLesch - I am aware that you and User:Magnolia677 have been quarreling about restaurants and other topics in Minneapolis for more than six months, as I am aware that you and Magnolia677 engaged in moderated discussion at DRN in September 2022. We expected that you would identify any issues you thought needed dispute resolution at that time.  So I viewed your current request as a new dispute.  Either it is a new dispute, or it is the reactivation of a dispute which had been hibernating.  In either case, you posted to the article talk page, and then immediately came to DRN without waiting for an answer from Magnolia677.  I have three questions at this time (and may have more in hours or days), two of which are procedural, and the second of which is substantive.  The first procedural question is why you didn't wait for a reply from Magnolia677 after posting to the article talk page.  The substantive question is whether the image in question in the past 24 hours is the same image as was in question in February, or a different image.  The third question is whether you have a conflict of interest with any business or employer in Minnesota.  In any case, this appears to have been an on-again-off-again dispute for several months that wasn't brought up when you were at DRN six weeks ago.  So take at least 24 hours to exchange posts with Magnolia677 on the talk page.  You haven't tried recent discussion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Self-preservation (learned from a pattern of aggression dating to 2020). I am studying to serve as a poll worker in two weeks, my first time. Magnolia677 sneaked up behind my back to raise the issue of WP:FAR. I don't expect to have much help and would prefer to call for FAR myself maybe early next year (not at some time Magnolia677 chooses). Anyway I apologize for skipping that step. Overnight we may have reached partial agreement on a minor point.
 * No, the image is not the same. This an exterior image which seems to me to follow our consensus in February. The photographer kindly changed his license for us yesterday.
 * No, I do not have a COI. My home is in California. I was born in Minneapolis, and visit family and friends there about once a year.
 * -SusanLesch (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Question about Imam Shamil

 * echidnaLives I asked him a few questions. Analysed all the sources. He didn't answer to a single one of them, broke WP:Consensus and started throwing nonsense accusations (which is breaking WP:Ethics, I think). Are you joking now or do I have to really indulge aggressive abusing behavior? Everything is layed out in terms of dispute nature. The disputer just doesn't want to engage and loops the conversation into "nationalists, nationalists, all lies".--HamzatCan (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC) moved from main page by 
 * Hello @HamzatCan. The dispute resolution noticeboard can't do anything if the other user won't reply. Also, this doesn't really matter. 3 questions were asked, and there was only one reply, which you never responded to, even though it's been over 2 weeks. That's not a discussion. I would recommend getting more people involved. You could ask on a relevant WikiProject's noticeboard, you could ask for a WP:3rd opinion or just ask other people. We can reconsider the case if there is actual discussion. However, if there is clear consensus against you, we won't be moderating anything. Thanks, echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  10:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC).
 * He didn't answer my questions related to the content and his questions were avoding the dispute alltogether. He broke the consensus and it's clear he should be proving his point first before vandalising the sources, answering content related quesions. And you make me sweat for refuting his edits which break all the rules. Now I asked him all content-related questions again then, with all the sources quoted again. This is not logical and reasonable. But please, just pay attention to what he will do. 100% chance he'll only shout again "nationalists, nationalists, you're a sockpupper, I don't hear, I don'see". But let's see.HamzatCan (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @HamzatCan If you have a problem with a user, please use administrative noticeboards like WP:ANI. The reason they may of not replied is because you didn't ping them. In my reply on the talk page, I have pinged him. We will see if they respond, but in the meantime use WP:3O or WikiProject pages, as I said before but only for content disputes. Thanks, echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  11:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC).
 * User:HamzatCan - I think that I understand your frustration. However, I don't think that DRN is the right forum for your concerns.  Some of the problems that you list as reasons why you want intervention are reasons why DRN is unable to deal with your dispute.  What we do is to mediate a content dispute when discussion has been conducted, but the discussion has not resulted in agreement or compromise.  We help facilitate discussion, but only if the editors have already tried to discuss.  In particular, it appears that you are saying that the other editor is making personal attacks.  Personal attacks should be reported at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay.  Also, if you have been trying to discuss content issues and the other editor does not discuss, please read the discussion failure essay.  Also, it is not helpful to say that another editor is vandalizing the sources.  Please read Yelling Vandalism.  Saying that another editor is vandalizing is a personal attack.  Either report the vandalism at the vandalism noticeboard, or don't say that there is vandalism.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)