Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

New Volunteer? Again?

I can see a new editor has included his/her name (User:Fruit Nd Nut) in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteers, who's newer than 'Editor of all things Wikipedia'. How come we get new volunteers very often? What's attracting new editors here (to be volunteers in particular)? *sigh*--☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I can only assume it's the simple fact that being a Dispute Resolution Volunteer conveys upon one Absolute Power. DonIago (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

(Jaaron95) please do not mistake me being new as being incompetent in volunteering here. I am in fact in I.T so although new, am more then capable. Perhaps I may suggest with strong unconstructive opinions like that YOU may reconsider volunteering here.--Fruit Nd Nut (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Fruit Nd Nut - I am troubled by your immediate hostile comment to User:Jaaron95. I don't see a "strong unconstructive" opinion on his part. I do on yours, but will accept that you were just rubbed the wrong way. Where he is coming from is that, only a few days ago, we had another very new editor who wasn't willing to take time to learn the complicated environment of Wikipedia, and violated multiple rules, and damaged a mediation case here, and eventually had to be blocked. So Jaaron95 is understandably wary. I would caution you that experience in IT (of which I have 45 years) does not in itself qualify you for any particular virtual community. IT experience can be in dealing with the non-human computer, or the humans behind the screens, and how the humans behind the screens react and behave depends very much on the virtual community. So please try to be patient with us as we try to be patient with you. You were indeed rubbed the wrong way on entry, but you have rubbed us the wrong way in lecturing one of us. Try to work with us and learn, not to run in enthusiastically thinking that you can lead. TransporterMan has good advice to observe here for a while, or to work at the third opinion project, which is much lighter-weight, or to work at the specialized noticeboards. We just had a bad experience with a new editor. Please try to give us a good experience with a new editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I think "new" is a relative term. A high number of edits/months on WP does not automatically make one a good (or bad) DRN volunteer. The components of a good DRN moderator are 1) people/communication skills and 2) good working knowledge of WPs policies and guidelines. People skills usually come from one's personality and real life experiences. Knowledge of WP policies usual takes time and experience on WP but for some the learning curve could be very short. It just depends on the person. In any case we should assume good faith and welcome people of all backgrounds. They can start slow, get a mentor and/or make use of this talk page to get themselves up to speed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, Fruit Nd Nut. Thank you for volunteering to help here at DRN. I've a volunteer here at DRN since its beginning. Being in IT with its concomitant knowledge of tech issues is not as important as having a great deal of experience at Wikipedia and, via that experience, having a fairly comprehensive knowledge of Wikipedia policy, guidelines, procedures, and customs. Some real-world experience in dispute resolution does not hurt, either, but it's the knowledge of those other things which is important since about 95% of all content disputes revolve around policy issues or can be resolved by the proper understanding and application of policy. If you don't have that knowledge, either by a long history of IP editing or by intensive study, I'd strongly recommend that you merely observe for a considerable period of time or, much better, take some requests over at the Third Opinion project and spend some time participating at the specialized noticeboards such as reliable sources noticeboard, biographies of living persons noticeboard, and no original research noticeboard, among others. Best regards and thanks again, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Fruit Nd Nut please don't get offended.. My comments were so, 'cause all the new editors I saw did not have good understanding on Wiki policies. I thought you were one of them. That's it.. Nothing against volunteering here. Regards--☮JAaron95 ^Talk 17:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

(JAaron95) I understand what you are saying, it must be somewhat frustrating when new editors volunteer and make contributions when they are not totally familiar with the processes, I can assure you that I only want to make helpful contributions and will not do so until I have complete understanding of the gudelines....ect....ect. best regards--Fruit Nd Nut (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It would be wise for Fruit Nd Nut to learn a bit about how Wikipedia works before volunteering to help with dispute resolution. I have been tidying up a few of his editing mistakes, including posting user warnings to an article page and to an article talk page, presumably having mistaken each of them for a user talk page. He has also placed a speedy deletion tag with a crioterion that obviously doesn't match the criteria in WP:CSD. If someone else has time it may be worth looking at his other edits. He is obviously enthusiastic, but still needs to learn the basics. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There should be no question regarding knowledge of new moderators, but there is always possibility that if moderator's opinion goes against one of disputant then that disputant can dispute moderator himself on the basis of less experience of moderator. In my case, I was involved party in previous dispute and Steven Zhang was moderator (who also created this board), but when Steve took one stand regarding disputed content then one of disputant demanded change in moderator. Means, disputant here can apply any logic to defend their version, In this case of Fruit Nd Nut any experienced editor can question stand of Fruit on the basis of less experience. He/she is on Wikipedia since just a week. For anyone it takes months to understand policies of Wikipedia deeply. It took 2-3 months for me to understand Wikipedia properly. Still it doesn't mean that others will also take that much time, still disputants have always a reason to have objection over less experienced moderator. In my opinion, one should be well aware of all Wiki policies regarding what kind of content should be on Wikipedia to moderate such things. There is also my name in volunteers list, but I have not moderated any dispute yet but I will moderate in future. I'm on Wikipedia since 7 months, have 8,000+ edits, but its just since 2-3 months I became more confident Wikipedian. Still best regards to Fruit N Nut. Cheers. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  18:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

From the header to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard: "We are always looking for new volunteers... having... a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important." I think that it is only reasonable that people seeking dispute resolution should assume that volunteers meet what seems a fairly obvious requirement. While turning away someone from dispute resolution on the basis that they lack the necessary knowledge may well upset them, failing to do so may result in disruption to dispute resolution, and potentially cause a great deal more upset. We need to look at the broader picture. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Andy's right here. I think it'd be beneficial for an "accepted" (for lack of a better term) DRN volunteer to have a certain amount of talk page experience -- be it at article talk pages or our various forums before getting active in dispute resolution. Such editors are more likely to have experienced different situations, making it easier to address DRN needs, both in terms of policy knowledge and interactions. —SpacemanSpiff 15:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Preemptive strikes on inexperienced volunteers

I am not raising this issue to imply criticism of anything or anyone in relation to the Fruit Nd Nut situation, above, and FSM knows that we were gun shy after the recent The Editor of All Things Wikipedia flap, but I have to wonder if we're doing ourselves a disservice by immediately reacting to an experienced editor merely signing up on the volunteer list. As Human3015 has pointed out above and on FNN's talk page, there are many, many editors who sign up on our volunteer list and go for a very, very long time without ever making an edit on our main page (indeed, there are a gazillion who sign up there and never darken our cyberdoor again, just like there are a gazillion who sign up on Wikiproject participant lists <ahem> but never participate). While I imagine that most of those "joiners" will never do anything here there may be a very small number like Human3015 who do and making a preemptive "you're not experienced enough to take part here" strike on those who are inexperienced, before they show any sign of actually participating, may I fear not only prevent them from ever doing so but run them off from Wikipedia altogether (as is apparently what has happened with FNN). Having said that, I can see several approaches to this issue. One is to send an automatic greeting to anyone who signs up on the volunteer list, which I suspect could be easily done with a template and our maintenance bot (eh, Hasteur?) something like this (with no border):

==Volunteering at DRN== (<==Talk page section header) Thank you for volunteering at DRN! Having a desire to help to keep the peace at Wikipedia is highly commendable and a great calling and, by helping editors come to consensus, is of direct benefit to the encyclopedia. Before taking or commenting on a case, please be sure to: Carefully and thoroughly read the header at the top of the main DRN page and all of the Volunteering page. Understand that if you're a newcomer or relative newcomer to Wikipedia that a substantial amount of experience at Wikipedia and a fairly comprehensive knowledge of Wikipedia policy, guidelines, procedures, and customs is needed to successfully moderate cases at DRN. It's not something that one can do simply using common sense or off-the-cuff knowledge, since most content disputes revolve around policy issues or can be resolved by the proper understanding and application of policy. If you don't have that experience and knowledge, either by a long history of IP editing or by intensive study of policies and guidelines, you should merely observe DRN for a considerable period of time or, much better, take some requests over at the Third Opinion project (where the stakes are not so high and the work not so difficult because volunteers there do not become involved in moderation or mediation and only issue opinions which can be entirely accepted or rejected by the parties in dispute) and spend some time at the specialized noticeboards such as reliable sources noticeboard, biographies of living persons noticeboard, and no original research noticeboard, among others. This is an automated message sent by the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard maintenance bot to individuals who sign up on the List of the DRN volunteers. Thank you again for wanting to help to resolve disputes at Wikipedia! — ~~~~~ (<==Timestamp)

This would send the right message to new signups but without feeling that the community has pounced on them for merely signing up on the volunteer list. What you y'all think? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't User:Human3015 who responded to FNN. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

TransporterMan Technically, yes this could be done. I would like to have a discussion regarding the requirements of such a program (i.e. What level of activity does it "signing up" does it take to trigger the welcome notice, If the user signs up over the course of several edits (i.e. Hasteur => User:Hasteur => User:Hasteur) to we send the notice? Do we send the notice for people signing others up? How soon after signing up do we send the welcome notice out? Do we do a once a day delivery of welcomes?) before we submit it for BRFA/coding. I'm expressing little/no opinion on the "should we" aspect because I've been out of DRN for a while and I'm less than comfortable with automated welcome wagons delivering these types of notices. Hasteur (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

All good points. Community, what say you? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need for an automated process ('cause we are not getting loads of volunteers everyday). A welcome template would suffice in this case, which could easily be delivered by the Volunteers who are active here. Bot'ing this process is simply not worth it I should say! But the need of the hour is to find a way to assess the skills of newly signing up volunteers before s/he brilliantly handles cases (or) messes up everything. Regards--☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The template is good but it could also be intimidating. I think it should be one of the Coordinator's responsibilities to welcome newcomers with a note on their talk page and an offer to help/mentor etc. and this template could be used in that context.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Even better, could be open to all volunteers! Why restrict to Coordinator? Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 17:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Automatic delivery feels a lot less like someone jumping on you than delivery by a volunteer or the coordinator. As for it being intimidating ... well, that's kind of the purpose, to discourage volunteers who are not sufficiently experienced before they jump in and create a mess. I'll also say, however, that I'm not at all certain that we need to do anything at all. We've been able so far to deal with the occasional inexperienced volunteer on a case by case basis without them causing too much disruption, but I'd rather see something like this used rather than us pouncing on every new sign-up as happened with FNN. In addition to the depersonalization afforded by the bot, putting more obligation on the coordinator will be one more thing to discourage people from becoming coordinator and one more thing for the community to have to deal with when an incompetent or more-absent-than-present coordinator comes along. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

For a new and relatively inexperienced editor, all feels the same. They probably don't know that a username finishing with 'Bot' is just a bunch of codes. Instead, they'll take it for a message from real, organic, carbon based life form and will likely reply to the message (I've encountered that). For an experienced editor/good volunteer who is fit for the post would take the message happily, knowing that they'll have to deal with messages/comments more meaner than that. Regards —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I may have a suggestion for this. Why can't we ask for a prerequisite of having involved in any of the following projects (for some time, maybe a week or so, or based on no. of cases handled); Third opinion (or) RSN (or) BLPN (or) NORN? So that we can evaluate his/her competency in solving issues.. Won't that be a good minimum requirement? Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 05:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Various Sorts of New Editors

As KeithBob and the other editors say, we have various sorts of "new" editors. We have experienced editors who signed up here years ago and only mediate a case once in a while, or who signed up and never mediate. That is all right, although it does raise questions as to why they put themselves on the volunteer list. Maybe they are waiting for a case in their special area of knowledge. (Maybe a zoologist is waiting for an article about a species. If so, that is reasonable restraint.) I agree with the concept of a welcome template for volunteers. I think that it should be fine for any other experienced or semi-experienced volunteer to provide the welcome (just like any Wikipedian can welcome Wikipedians). I don't think that we need formal rules about welcoming. (That is certainly less important than rules about how to deal with cases.). I think that it is important that we be perceived as a friendly community to our own volunteers. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

At the same time, as we know, we recently had a bad experience with a completely unqualified volunteer who caused damage both here and elsewhere. Then we had another very inexperienced volunteer sign up, and that was just mutually unfortunate. FNN and another volunteer were mutually a little harsh, for understandable reasons, for which no real fault should be assigned. My suggestion is that there be language in the welcome template that says that we have found that experience in Wikipedia is important to being an effective volunteer, and that it recommend that inexperienced editors who want to help with dispute resolution are encouraged to do so at third opinion, by observing here, and by observing at the specialized noticeboards, familiarizing themselves with the appropriate policies, and then getting involved there. That is, you need to be familiar with the reliable source policy at the reliable source noticeboard, with the biographies of living persons policy and the biographies of living persons noticeboard, and so on. You really need to know multiple policies here, given how disputes go all over. So I think that a welcome template that suggests ways for new editors to get involved in dispute resolution is a good idea, and might help avoid things like the FNN matter. (I am not sure that anything would have prevented TEOATW, and who upset many of us.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Expressing concerns over the DRN volunteer Human3015

I'm little bit concerned in the way Human3015 is working. First, he used the word defeat, pending a comment from the OP. B, he started adding the contentious material immediately after the full-protection expired even as the case was still in progress. C, he placed {{Ds/alert}} on the OPs talk page when OP reverted his edit with an edit summary, 'a DRN case is in progress'. I would not expect this kind of conduct (provoking actions/statements) from one who is already a Volunteer here. In fact I would expect a involved party, who is a Volunteer, to be an example for the OP. If a Volunteer performs these kind of actions, in no way can I justify the actions of a non-volunteer. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jaaron95: Yes, I should have not do that, it was mistake from my side. It was just because OP was not commenting here despite being active on Wikipedia for 2 days. But OP resumed discussion after that incidence which is a good for dispute resolution process. Actually OP also reverted some of my other good faith edits to that article which were not related to this dispute. Obviously, I will not do such things in future. I accept that it was not good thing for me specially when my name is in DRN volunteer list. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  16:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It is obvious that I will never volunteer any India-Pakistan conflict related dispute, or maybe any politics related dispute. I am interested in volunteering food, beverages and tourism related disputes. For example, currently dispute regarding food Rosogulla going on, I commented there to help filer and my suggestion really helped him. I'm interested in such disputes. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  16:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the context of this issue, but a few general comments: first, it's OK for a DRN volunteer to participate in a dispute. When commenting, this user should fully disclose that he or she is a DRN volunteer and that he or she is not acting in that capacity. I would suggest that this user should refrain from any "volunteer"-type tasks pertaining to the case; better to stay safe and let others handle that. That said, User:Human3015 has offered very reassuring comments above. Thanks, North of Eden (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Rosogolla

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

---

@User:Human3015|Human3015

My Comments (for better mutual understanding)

I thank you Human3015 for being so humane to me.

Yes, I do agree with you that Robert has already said me many things. However, what helps me most your suggestion to start Wikipedia:Requested moves discussion at Rasgulla's talk page.

But what am I worried about the possible consensus of the Rasgulla administrators community there in Rasgulla's talk page, I have experienced that some of them are so biased that they might not accept valid acceptable sources, sources those explain my views.

Your rest of the suggestions, adding info about Rosogolla and section for "Bengali," indeed encourage me to rethink.

Ultimately I feel your statements are very humane, that is all that I can say about your statements on the issue.

Your are great Sir,

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 10:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

My reply in response to User:Jaaron95 at the Project named Rosogolla discussion.

Refer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Rosogolla_discussion

@[[User:Jaaron95)

My Comments (for better mutual understanding)

What I disagree to your specific statements are those that Rosogolla is not only original name, it also is the desert’s formal name therefore, most common and familiar name should be Rosogolla and not Rasgulla.

The reasons that almost all the Bengali speaking community, both in West Bengal and Bangladesh use the desert Rosogolla and they spell it exactly as Rosogolla,

Many Non-Bengali speaking communities in India call and spell it as Rasgulla, where very few of them actually use Rosogolla or Rasgulla.

Therefore, considering Rosogolla's comparable actual usage, and the desert’s familiarity with total number of people calling the desert as Rosogolla is much more above the number of people who prefer to call it as Rasgulla. If you do not agree with my statement, please have a little more research for the validity of my statement, you will come to know what is correct.

Therefore, your understanding between the name Rosogolla and Rasgulla does not seem to be correct.

Thanks

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 10:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• This content really belongs in the relevant discussion thread on the project page, not here. This talk page is for discussing issues relating to the noticeboard's operations, not the merits of particular disputes. North of Eden (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Added back 'HOLD' to {{DR case status}}

I went through the discussion in the top of this page and volunteers make note of 'hold' option in {{DR case status}}. As no one seems to oppose this option, I went ahead and added it back to {{DR case status}} (feel free to revert, if anyone opposes). I too think that's necessary for one time or the other. If fellow volunteers agree on this, I think Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering should be updated. And the bot doesn't seem to recognize the 'hold' value, rather it treats it like a new discussion. Should Hasteur be made aware of that? Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Pinging @Hasteur:. If you could spare some time, can you look at this? Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It is sometimes a useful status. I concur with the action, and would appreciate any action on the part of User:Hasteur or anyone else. It should not be used too often, but one of the uses would be if either the moderator or one of the principal parties goes on known vacation/holiday. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for your repeated and multiple pings... A guy can't get 40 winks without being summoned to answer a thread... I've implemented the barest minimum of what I understand this request to be [1], but it's only going to apply the hold status if the status string is hold. If there's other strings that need to be included I need to know what they are. I'm at work for the next ~10 hours so it will be in the evening Continental-US that I will be able to pull the change in. I will review this thread to see if any refinement of the consensus has been established. Hasteur (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

'hold' is intuitive and will suffice. Thanks for taking a look {{ping|Hasteur}}.. Never will ping you again, Sorry! Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jaaron95: One ping only, Vasili (Cpt Marko Ramius The Hunt for Red October (film)). I have no objections to one ping, but when multiple people ping me in the same thread within 2 hours, I start to get annoyed. Hearing no objections, the code has been pushed to the ToolLabs cluster and a manual run was executed. I consider this request closed. Hasteur (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Gracias monsieur! I wish Technical 13 comes back and pings you like the pings you've never seen before... —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 09:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Monsieur @Hasteur: The new discussion (last case) was put to hold 'cause of this edit.. Or is it something else? Confused. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't determine why it's broken at this time as I'm at work. Hasteur (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jaaron95: Fixed. Had a slight logical bug in which it'd loop through many options on an empty string. Changed the code so that an empty drn case status template sets as "New" case status. Hasteur (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Page protection tag

An article that I am moderating has a page protection tag because it was fully protected for one week. The "edit this page" tab is now visible, so that the protection has expired. Should I remove the tag? Since the tag is now inaccurate, removing it seems like a neutral thing to do. (The page protection was, in my view, entirely appropriate, and it caused the discussion to be brought here.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, yes please. Anyone can remove expired page protection tags. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Tag removed. I hope that no one takes advantage of the tag being removed to start edit-warring again, because now the case is here, where it should be. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Failed the thread

I had to fail the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Acting coordinator

Steve has been away for several days due to RW matters. With his blessing, I've become acting coordinator until he can return. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Congrats!—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 00:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Western Railway Corridor

Testing out the DRN shoes again, see if they fit with my schedule... I'm aiming to AGF as best as possible, but I did notice while looking at the article in question that Brenquinn and Bquinn207, an editor from back in June as far as the edit history goes, do seem to be dead ringers for one another. Maybe a case of a lost password, but still doesn't look very good, especially not if there is a COI as Donoreavenue proposes. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊_BLASTER 12:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I've closed that case for lack of adequate discussion, but a word of advice: The best practice for volunteers here is to become involved with content or conduct but not both in the same case. The only value we have to give to the parties here is our neutrality. Once you begin commenting on conduct (in the case, here on the talk page, or elsewhere), except as needed to keep control of the discussion here at DRN (and even that needs to be phrased as neutrally as possible unless an editor calls your hand), then you begin to look partisan. If you see something like what you spotted here, ask yourself whether you want to be a conduct enforcer or want to be a mediator in regard to that case. If the former, file at the appropriate conduct forum; if the latter, take the case here. But don't do both. If you spot something like this after you have taken the case, in most cases the best thing to do is to just gut it up and keep it to yourself unless it is disrupting the DRN case or is being used to manipulate the DRN case. There are also a very few conduct matters, generally involving legal issues, where I think that we all have an obligation to the encyclopedia to act regardless of the effect that it may have on the DRN case: legal threats, indisputable intransigent copyright violations, advocacy of sexual conduct with children or other violation of our child protection policy, perhaps intransigent BLP violations indisputably involving defamatory material, and maybe one or two others; in those cases it's probably best to close the case here and report the conduct to ANI unless the disputant in question is a very minor player in the dispute (which, unfortunately, usually isn't the case). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC) PS: Please, don't take what I've said as criticism: there's a lot to learn here, and it can take awhile to get it all down. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. I suspected it was something out of the scope of what I should bring up, but I wasn't sure. And I welcome your feedback, it didn't seem critical. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊_BLASTER 14:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Clarification Requests (again), not about WRC

Thank you, TransporterMan, for restating the importance of neutrality. It isn't always easy to be neutral, especially since some editors come here wanting the moderator to take their "side". I would just like to clarify that in cases where it is clear at the outset that there is a conduct issue, such as legal threats, persistent copyright violation, or defamatory BLP content, it is probably better not to open the case here at all. Is that mostly correct? (I know that, in some cases, copyright violation is the result of an enthusiastic editor who hasn't been taught to rewrite in his own words, and that then maybe one of us can help, but usually that goes to the Teahouse.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

My next question, which I have probably asked too many times, is what if anything a volunteer here can reasonably do after a case has failed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

If you mean failed by being closed before ever being opened, and you were not the closer, you can do just about anything. Your general status as a DRN volunteer should not prevent you from doing anything. Even if you were the closer, you can probably do it though I think that it is more prudent to not. But I wouldn't even put that mild limitation on it if the misconduct involved was one of those "special" things like legal threats. If the case has been opened and you're forced to close it due to misconduct in the case which could not be handled through admonitions, strikeouts, collapsings, etc., and which disrupts the case to the point its fruitless then it's certainly appropriate to take that to a conduct forum. To me, puppetry is on the line. If the parties continue to make puppetry accusations after filing here (or if there's an SPI going on that I happen to notice — I don't go looking for one or any other kind of conduct proceedings, though I do usually check the parties' talk pages and contributions looking for additional discussion and if there's something going on I'll sometimes see it there), then I usually feel that nothing is going to get accomplished here until that's resolved and while I won't file the SPI I'll tell the parties to go away, file there, and get that resolved and then come back if they still are in dispute afterwards; whether I put the case on hold or close it depends on how old it is and how quickly I think the SPI will be resolved. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I left this out: If you mean failed because consensus could not be reached after moderated discussion here, then I do not believe that the moderator should be filing or supporting any conduct complaints. Once again, that opens you (and indirectly DRN) to the charge that you weren't neutral all along and were just hiding your bias during the discussion here. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay. In this case, it is a matter of failing the case after opening it because consensus was impossible. In the particular case, where I had been saying that I thought that the case needed resolving by RFCs, I will take this as meaning that I can still use the RFC process, although if I open an RFC I should not close it. I agree that anyone who briefly moderated a case should not file at WP:ANI for any thing less than a legal threat, and probably even not that. Someone else can always report a legal threat. I will go ahead with an RFC, and will be very careful in its wording. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Exactly right, except that I feel that legal threats and those other things I mentioned above should be reported because they have legal repercussions for the encyclopedia. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Anything that actually threatens the well-being of the encyclopedia, such as legal threats, persistent copyvio (and occasional copyvio may not be persistent copyvio), etc., overrides neutrality, but insults, tendentious editing, being a jerk/fool, sockpuppetry claims (especially when that is just an insult to "win" a dispute), do not override neutrality. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Failure to Notify or List Parties

One question that occurred to me, looking at the new case: when there are parties to a case, either listed in the application or not, that haven't been notified of the DRN filing, is it exclusively the filer's responsibility to make sure they're notified, or do we have some part to play in that-- and if so, to what extent? Should we go to the point of actively checking the article talkpage and history for anyone who appears to be part of the dispute and make sure they know about the DRN thread (probably in a general notice posted on the TP linking to it, I'd imagine, rather than posting to their individual talkpages), or does our due diligence only extend to making sure the listed parties are notified, and the rest is on the filer/involved parties to make happen? ^BLUSTER⌉⌊_BLASTER 17:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Our official position is that it's up to the listing party to notify everyone and that if they fail to do so after two or three days (and the others don't just show up here on their own), then we close the case as abandoned. As a practical matter however, my personal practice is that if there's just one or two respondents, I'll usually just go ahead and notify them myself. If there's more, then I'll add a volunteer's note saying:

"Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just reminding the filing editor that it is his obligation to notify the other participants of this filing by leaving a note on their user talk pages. The template mentioned at the top of this page can be used for that purpose or a custom-written note. If those notices are not given in the next two or three days — and placing a notice on the article talk page will not suffice — this listing will be closed as abandoned."

As for who's listed and who isn't, I do check the talk page. If there's a party or two missing, I add, create initial response sections, and notify them; if there's more, however, I'll usually do an administrative close on the case with a closing remark which says,

"Administrative close. There are quite a few other editors at the article talk page who have participated in this discussion. It is unfair to the volunteers here to have to add them and create initial response sections for all of them. Please feel free to refile and add and notify all participants in the discussion."

Clear as mud? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

No. Quite a bit clearer than mud. It's a judgment call by the volunteer and the coordinator. Thank you (as the volunteer who noted rather than corrected the missing editors and notifications) for not requiring additional work by the volunteers. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

As Robert said-- abundantly clear, thank you! ^BLUSTER⌉⌊_BLASTER 10:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

About 'ongoing' case being archived..

North of Eden, I've gone ahead and changed the DoNotArchiveUntill parameter of both of your cases to Aug 31. One of which was already archived, and I had to cut and paste the thread. I think you should change the dates appropriately until we figure out an alternative. @Hasteur: Can we make the bot sense all of the following parameters—none, active, open, inprogress, needassist, relist, relisted, review, resolve, resolved and hold? And stop it from archiving the case which has any of the strings above? Or else, make it archive only if these parameters—close, fail and failed are found? (After the DoNotArchiveUntill date ofcourse) Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Jaaron95: Out of scope for the task of Extract and calculate the DRN case parameters for updting {{DRN case status}}. IF we decide to kick LowercaseSigmaBot3 (by removing MizaBot config) then I can work on designing a 4x a day process to sweep up any threads that are both in a terminal state and 48 hours un-edited. I need to hear positive confirmation that this is a desired behavior (especially from some senior members (Steven Crossin—Guy Macon—TransporterMan—PhilKnight—Keithbob) of the group) as we've been using this solution for a long time. Hasteur (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

No, the 14 day archiving should happen regardless of the case status and it should be up to the volunteer working the case to prevent it from happening by extending the DNA date if that is appropriate (or restoring it if he/she misses it and it gets archived). The 14 day archiving is to enforce the notion that this is a "middleweight" DR process and that the vast majority of resolutions that happen here should not take longer than that. Cases should only be extended if clear, continuous progress is being made towards resolution, but perhaps a bit more slowly than the one-edit-per-24-hours standard used by the bot after 14 days. Complex mediations should be sent to formal mediation. Also, if a case is to be restored from the archive it ought to ordinarily only either be the volunteer on that case or the coordinator who does it (though helping someone else who's not sure how to do it is, of course, commendable). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with TransporterMan. Extending a case should be opt-in, not opt-out. The volunteer should have to purposely extend it, and have a reason for doing so. Also, I have a strong preference for whatever causes the least work for Hasteur unless there is a real benefit that we all agree upon. In fact, we should discuss and decide what we want to do before anyone pings Hasteur, then reconsider depending on how hard he say the change will be to implement. Designing a new process is a lot of effort. Something like changing a three-day timeout to four days is easy. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I concur and hereby withdraw my proposal. Didn't know it was part of a complex structure. Also, took note of we should discuss and decide what we want to do before anyone pings Hasteur. Thanks Guy Macon, TransporterMan for making it crystal clear. And sorry Hasteur if I've wasted your time. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear there are 2 interlocking processes. One is the DNAU which is set to 14 days by default as part of a DRN case filing. The second is the archiving parameters which says that any thread (that isn't excluded by a DNAU that is not yet expired) that has not recieved a single signed post in 48 hours is eligible to be archived. Hasteur (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I have a question. There have from time to time been statements that a case will be archived after the DNAU date has passed if it is not updated in 24 hours. Hasteur appears to be saying that is really 48 hours. I agree that 48 hours, for a case whose DNAU date has passed, is a more reasonable time. If it is 48 hours, then I think that the current two-tier system is fine, and that it should be up to volunteers whether to extend the DNAU date. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hasteur is correct, it's 48 hours. Used to be 24, wonder when it changed (or if I've had it wrong all along)? I'm fine with 48, however. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that someone had complained that 24 was too short. If Hasteur replied by changing it to 48, then thank you. I think that 48 is better when the case is quasi-dormant. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: The 24 to 48 hour change was at 28 July 2013 UTC by the director emeritus. Hasteur (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Damn. The things you learn... Thanks and best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Status Bot

The last two cases that were declined are not listed by the bot at all. It states that the last update was at 0430 GMT on Thursday, and it is now about 0120 GMT on Friday. I have left a note on the talk page of User:Hasteur. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Malformed case filing in the Elaine Wynn case Robert McClenon. Missign the {{drn filing editor}} template... Hasteur (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixed by these revisions. Hasteur (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Two Inactive Cases

There are two cases that are assigned to moderator User:North of Eden which appear to be inactive. In particular, the one about the 2016 US presidential election has been estivating for eight days. It appears that North of Eden hasn't edited for three days. Should something be done about these cases, such as a General Close due to inactivity and removing the DNAU date? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Since what's done's been done, let's avoid confusion and inconsistency by doing nothing for awhile to see if NoE comes back and/or if the discussion is continuing. If the latter, and NoE doesn't come back in a couple of days, we can see if the parties are interested in having a new moderator take over the cases. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: If it's against the goals of DRN, I'm willing to revert my action. Apologies for my ignorance. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Nah, no harm no foul. You certainly were doing what you thought was right, no complaint there, and with NoE's absence, frankly, even if it was a bit out of the ordinary it may well prove to be beneficial. Let's just see how things sort themselves out over the next couple of days. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I personally really don't like the idea of a case being archived while nominally active. I am not sure why. I would prefer to have the cases General Closed as inactive or whatever before they are archived. That is just my opinion. In any case, I have pinged User:North of Eden, but it would appear that they are on vacation. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

One of the editors in the Under the Skin case is editing. The moderator hasn't been heard from. Should an alternate moderator be requested? I would suggest that the other case, about a political map, should be put to bed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Under the Skin

Something needs to be done about this case. Does it need an alternate moderator, or should it be closed? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Democratic Primary Map Case

Unless anyone objects today, I will do a general close on this case due to its inactivity, and it can be archived as a closed case rather than archived while still nominally active. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I was planning on just letting it be re-archived unclosed later this week. No harm in that; it's the way the system is set up to work. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Closed and archived case being opened..

Sandra opposed to terrorism is opening the case which was closed and archived previously (probably was their ignorance). S/he also left a message on my talk page (this one) expressing concern. Could someone please explain what they did wrong and also explain the bot updating interval as I'm quite busy right now.. Thanks and regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I've re-closed the case and responded to her at her user talk page. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the history of the case, the offending editor was not really User:Sandra opposed to terrorism. It was User:Tough sailor ouch, who changed the status of the case from closed to open, therefore permitting Sandra, in good faith, to argue that the case was open. Or, at least, if Sandra did something non-permitted, she was not the only offending editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I've also responded at TSO's talk page. Thanks, Robert, for getting there first and providing a good explanation of procedure. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Notifying Multiple Unregistered Editors in Same Block?

A case has just been opened in which the filing party listed multiple IP addresses. It appears that the filing party has notified one of them, but not the others, but that they are all in the same block and so may really be the same editor. Is it necessary to notify all of them? My own thought would be to assume that they are all the same editor, but I am asking. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

IMO, I would cross all t's/dot all i's, and just notify them all and assume for now that they are indeed different people unless they state otherwise. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊_BLASTER 17:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Concur with BlusterBlaster. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 17:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)