Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Review requested

User:TransporterMan or another experienced mediator, I've just had to render a decision in the first case I took, Friedrich Goldmann 23Influences and I had to come down harder than I expected because it had gone tendentious. I would just love a second pair of eyes because this was a stretch (a good one!) outside my comfort zone and I'm second-guessing. Thanks EBY (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is my opinion as an inexperienced mediator. I think that, far from being too hard, you were relatively easy. The two editors both used a lot of pixels commenting on the other contributor, complaining about each other, as well as discussing content. Also, the last statement by one of the participants was very long. I agree that they were getting tendentious. Unfortunately, I think that is likely to be a common problem, that they come here because they haven't been able to settle a content dispute, but a common reason for the inability to settle the content dispute is that they are stubborn. I agree that you had reason to be hard on them, because they were too busy being hard with each other. That is my inexperienced opinion. Maybe a more experienced mediator can give more specific comments or other advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Replacement volunteer needed.

I have had medical issues requiring hospitalization, and need someone to take over the Meghan Trainor case. Please convey my apologies to the editors involved. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Will let them know. Hope you're not doing too badly and are well soon. Volunteers? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Since three of the editors on this article have been blocked for 48 hours, and since there is discussion at WP:ANI, should the volunteer replacement simply fail the moderation rather than resume the moderation? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Since Battle of the Somme appears to be slowing down (does that mean that only a few hundred men are being killed each day), I am willing to take Meghan Trainor. The editors are off block now, but I will consider whether to do a general close due to edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Another Question

One of the issues about Battle of the Somme appears to require an RFC. There are other questions that, in my opinion, can continue. However, I see in the recent past that this group declines to take a case if an RFC is pending. Would publishing an RFC on whether to include a phrase in the lede section of the article make moderated discussion of other issues about the article impossible? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

No, that's well within your toolbag as a mediator. You shouldn't allow the discussion on the point going to RFC to continue at DRN, however. You also need to decide whether you will just cut off discussion on that point and leave it up to the disputants to decide whether or not to file the RFC or whether you will file it on their behalf. One thing you can do here is to get everyone to agree on the way the RFC will be stated, as that often proves to be controversial. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue was clear. It had to do with whether to include a particular phrase in a sentence in the lede section of the article. I filed the RFC on behalf of the disputants and will let them make the cases for inclusion of the phrase and for exclusion of the phrase, and I mentioned the RFC in the Military History project (which is a very active project and is likely to provide a reasonable number of previously uninvolved editors who may nonetheless know something about World War One. I have asked the participants whether there are any other issues that need to be resolved. If so, we will discuss them. If that is the only issue, it can be resolved as pending the outcome of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Changed a Title

I took the liberty of changing the title of a dispute awaiting acceptance. It had referred to a user's talk page where there was discussion of the issue. I changed it to Northern Province, Sri Lanka. I don't know whether the case should be accepted, but it isn't about a user's talk page but an article about a place. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible bug in intrapage linking?

I stumbled on a curious intra-page link behavior while trying to compare two different revisions of the main project page. It may be a bug(let) in how the "Case" table in this page is constructed.

In most regular articles, when looking at an earlier version of a page, intra-page links point to the target in question "on this page". In other words, the link text contains only the # symbol followed by the target name. So for example, to point to a section called "Criticisms", the link text would be something like [[#Criticisms|Click Here For Criticisms]]. That means that if you are reading version N of an article and you click an intra-page link, you stay within version N. I think that is the expected and correct behavior.

However, in this WP:DRN article (or "Project page"), in the big "Case" table just below the Welcome banner, earlier versions give the full path of the intra-page link. So, for example, instead of having a link text of:

[[#Talk:Battle_of_the_Somme]]

it appears as:

[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Battle_of_the_Somme]]

As a result, clicking on the link in version N takes you to the required section but in the current version of the article, not the section within version N. I suspect that's not what is intended.Thomask0 (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Hasteur: I think this is your baliwick. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Thomask0: I don't see what's broken. {{DRN case status}} is the template that is pulled in which pulls in {{DRN case status/row}}. It uses the shorterform link. From my testing it does not reload the page, but instead hops you to the right section. Also take into account that the DRN case status could be on individual user's dashboards so keeping the linkages as they are now is a benefit. Some concrete examples would be helpful. Hasteur (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Meghan Trainor

Dispute resolution has failed. One editor not only disagrees with the use of the term singer-songwriter but also appears to have doubts about using the RFC process. Should I request the locking admin to leave the page locked, or to unlock it? I won't be surprised if this goes back to WP:ANI. Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

No, no, no. I'm just saying I have my doubts, I'm not saying absolutely not. Sorry I wasn't clear. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

And why would you close without everyone commenting? I know this has been on the table for a while because the previous moderator had to bow out, but why such a hurry to close the discussion? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Your answer did not make me optimistic that an RFC was the way, but it was the only way forward. The fact that three of the editors got blocked for edit-warring while the case was open did not make me optimistic about the ability to resolve the case. However, an RFC was the only way forward. I cannot force the views of some editors on others. Only the community can establish consensus. No RFC, no resolution. If you want to post an RFC, go ahead. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Would the normal course have been for you to file an RfC?

Like I said above, I wasn't saying I absolutely wouldn't want an RfC, I just wasn't sure if it would be informed or unbiased. My reason for feeling that way is only because I wouldn't want to see an article - any article - with completely incorrect content (which calling Trainor singer-songwriter would be). It's like calling an Osteopath a Medical Doctor: they do essentially the same thing, but at the same time, they don't, and one is actually an O.D. and the other a true M.D. Asking a group of people who don't know the difference if it's okay to call the O.D. an M.D. seems illogical to me. But, maybe I should just have faith in the editors discussing? I don't know -- that's why I expressed my doubts. But I never said, "No way, no how" as you have characterized my response.

Still, I'm confused as to how this was closed so quickly and abruptly. And without everyone involved commenting. Doesn't seem as if this was done correctly. But, maybe I'm wrong all around. I've never taken part in a DRN prior to this instance. I'd appreciate some communication from you beyond your response above, Robert McClenon. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Your continuing complaints are tendentious. Now I understand why some experienced and respected editors, such as User:Coretheapple, want you sanctioned. You have just come off a WP:ANI thread, in which several editors wanted you either topic-banned or banned, and are just coming off a block, and are complaining about the DRN process, my decision to close the thread. First, there is no normal course for DRN; moderators are given considerable leeway. (I think that more guidance would be useful, but that is my opinion.) A general close is a very common result for many reasons. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It isn't clear what you wanted the moderator to do. Maybe you wanted the moderator to make a content decision that, using the current definition, although some participants think that the current definition is obsolete, Trainor is not a singer-songwriter and close the thread; probably not. Maybe you wanted the moderator to bully the participants into accepting your content judgment; probably not. Maybe you wanted the moderator to hold the discussion in hold to give you the liberty of time to make up your mind as to whether to use an RFC. That appears to be what you are saying, that I should have just waited for you to decide. You didn't ask me to wait. You just said that you didn't know. The only ways forward would have been: for the editors to agree, which they didn't; for the moderator to make a content decision, which isn't the way DRN works; or an RFC. You weren't sure about the RFC, and you didn't ask me to wait for you to make up your mind (and I don't know if I would have). Robert McClenon (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you re-read your own comments and see if you can see that, from my standpoint, you are projecting an enormous sense of "entitlement", that you expect other editors to make Wikipedia work your way. I see that sense of "entitlement" in your continuing complaints (as well as in your gaming the system on whether you were topic-banned). Robert McClenon (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I welcome comments from any uninvolved editors, especially from other uninvolved volunteer moderators. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Not complaints: questions and confusion. On my part as well as yours. Like I said, My comments were misunderstood, but I guess that wasn't enough to reverse your decision to close. Editors are volunteers too, after all, but we are treated as bad employees that the union won't allow to be fired. Apparently, we are expected to get it right all the time - no margin of error - and if not, we're considered bothersome, tendentious, acting as if we are entitled, and incompetent. You say you can see why Coretheapple doesn't like me, well I can see why going to DRN is a complete waste of time. Another lesson learned for me: have no faith in Wikipedia processes. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

One of the earliest functions of DRN is to evaluate a dispute and to refer it to a better dispute resolution venue if the volunteer feels that it would most benefit from such a referral more than it would from discussion here. Referrals are especially appropriate in disputes which are complicated due to fixed positions or due to the number of participants. This seems to be exactly that kind of situation and I fully support Robert in this decision. If the RFC does not resolve the matter, it can come back here or to some other form of dispute resolution. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Volunteers needed

The volunteer handling the Battlestar Galactica case has withdrawn and a replacement is needed. Any takers? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC) (coordinator)

I am willing to take the Battlestar Galactica case. However, I think that by now I may have a reputation as a volunteer who is willing to punt when the parties don't reach agreement. Should I take it anyway? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I took it. If the participants don't make any progress after three tries, that is fourth down, and the proper response in American football is to punt. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, a volunteer is also needed for Northern Province, Sri Lanka. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look SPACKlick (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator position vacant

Though my current term as coordinator ends, in theory, on the 31st, I'm probably going to be offline on real world matters after about 23:00 UTC tomorrow, January 27. The coordinator position for February-March, 2015, has no takers and having just served two consecutive terms I don't care to do a third in a row (though I'm sure I'll take it again in the future). If no one else volunteers — sign up here and fill in your name here so it will transclude into the header — we're not going to have a coordinator for the next two months. Just sayin'... Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, well, I guess I'll take it in the next hour or two if no one else will. Going once, going twice... --Biblioworm 20:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Since it's been quite a few hours already, I've volunteered for the position. --Biblioworm 01:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Bibs. I'm going to go ahead and substitute you for me at the end of the day today on the current coordinator page since I'll be offline for the rest of my term, but if I forget to do it please feel free to go ahead and do it after 23:00 UTC today with my blessings (and sympathies). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Bibs, you're on deck. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. (It's been quite a long time since I was a baby, though. ;)) --Biblioworm 22:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussing content or remaining neutral

Hi there, in the current dispute on Sri Lanka's Northern Province I am trying to remain neutral and help the parties involved discuss the matter however I do have an opinion on the sources and the content. Is it appropriate for me to give my opinion on the content of the dispute or should I remain neutral (as I have been attempting) to try and help the parties discuss it further? SPACKlick (talk) 10:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I've realised the above doesn't express my position very well. What I mean is can I discuss whether a source actually says what is claimed or not, whether it is reliable or not or should I just be pointing the disputants towards looking at those things? SPACKlick (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Closing Threads

I see that threads can be closed as Closed, also known as a general close, as Failed, and as Resolved. What is the difference between a general close and a fail? How does the volunteer update the case for a resolution or a fail? Is there guidance to volunteers? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It's largely in the eye of the beholder and in the discretion of the volunteer. For me, fail or resolved only apply after the case has been opened for discussion. General close applies to everything else. Frankly, the labeling isn't really all that important. At one time Our Founder Steven Zhang had visions of keeping statistics of how cases ended, but that was never really implemented. At most, the closing labels let someone roam through the archives and see how we've done. The syntax is:

• {{DR case status|closed}}
• {{DR case status|resolved}}
• {{DR case status|failed}}

And then, of course, explain your reasoning and sign it in the {{DRN archive top|reason=[Insert explanation] — ~~~~}} tag which you insert in place of the <!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] [time, date] (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|[id]}} material (and don't forget to add the {{DRN archive bottom}} tag at the very bottom of the listing). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Does that mean that cases that have been opened should not be General Closed, only Failed or Resolved, or that General Close is permitted after a case is opened? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It's possible for a general close to be used on an opened case in some situations. For example, if the dispute was to move to another venue it's possible that the moderator would use a general close, or if the dispute is found to be ineligible for DRN (if the mod didn't catch it at first) it may also be generally closed, even if already opened. I agree with TMan that fail or resolved are usually the only two outcomes of an opened case and are up to the discretion of the volunteer. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 19:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Still awaiting closure

There is an open discussion, now archived at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 106, still awaiting a response from User:Planetdust about whether or not we have consensus. Unfortunately, in the six days since the moderator proposed a solution, the bot archived the discussion. What is the procedure to provide Planetdust the opportunity to agree or disagree with the suggested solution?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems that he hasn't been online since then. If he is willing to discuss a consensus soon, it's possible that a volunteer would re-open the case for temporary and final discussion. To see him stop being online during discussion might hint at him wanting to drop his involvement. I'd advise you to contact him by dropping a note on his talk and seeing if he is still willing to work things out. Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 19:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I shall do that, thank you for the advice. Previous messages left there have gone unanswered but, either way, it could be taken as an indication of intent. If we wish to re-open the discussion, I presume the correct method is to post a request on the DRN just as if it were a new subject, only with a link to Archive 106?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

IP editors

What is the policy on participation in moderated dispute resolution by IP addresses? Three of the parties to Pope Joan are unregistered editors, and one of them has changed their IP address since the case was filed. (Many unregistered editors don't understand dynamic assignment of IP addresses.) Changes in IP addresses complicate resolving an already complicated dispute that has many parties. Is there any special guidance about IPs? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

We have no policy or guidance on that, though I certainly agree that it's a problem. At least a couple of us here have experimented with offering to take a case but only if the IP editors create accounts and only edit using those accounts. That's certainly within your rights as a volunteer: conditioning your participation on the disputant's agreement to do something. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

My own thinking is that it wouldn't be fair to the registered editors to decline the case, but I am willing to drop the IPs if their address shift. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Volunteers needed for two cases

These two cases have been open for almost 7 days and still have no moderator:

• Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Pope_Joan
• Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Ahmad Sanjar

Thanks, --Biblioworm 16:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

I've closed Ahmad Sanjar because there's been no response from the other editor in a week. I think that there are essential parties also missing from the Pope Joan request, too, but I've not yet had time to go back and review the preceding discussion to be sure. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The Pope Joan case is now in progress. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Survivor: Worlds Apart

It appears that there has been very little discussion. User:Biblioworm - Can the case be closed? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:  Done. --Biblioworm 03:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you guys always close threads before the 30 hours later mark? Wow, I didn't think I had to rush at the speed of light over here to make a comment. There were two comments made by two different users and I was putting together my thoughts before making a comment. Too late now, I suppose. Let the edit warring continue since I wasn't fast enough. Gloss 03:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You are asking the wrong question. You hadn't discussed the issue at Talk: Survivor: Worlds Apart extensively before heading to this board. That implies that you may not have read the preconditions for this board, which include extensive discussion at talk pages. That is required because we have only a few active volunteer moderators, and there are many contentious threads in Wikipedia, so we only use our resources on those that clearly need help. Go back to the article talk page and try discussing rather than edit-warring. It is always better to discuss than to edit-war. Discussion sometimes avoids the need to use the limited resources of this noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Gloss, Edit warring is a behavioral concern. If that is the main issue then another reason why the case was not a good fit here. If the edit warring continues and the parties refuse to discuss on the page then file at WP:AN3 to get resolution. If the parties stop edit warring and discuss on the talk page that's best. If after significant discussion there is no resolution then you can refile the case here to discuss the content issue exclusively. I hope that is helpful. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Keithbob, I didn't open up the discussion, I was invited to comment and never got the chance. But I really don't care, this was resolved over a week ago. Gloss 19:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Good, glad it got worked out. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer not on line since 31 Jan?

Fyi, User:Bejnar, our volunteer, has not been on WP since 31 Jan to respond to the information we have provided re General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy. Is this normal? Should we sit and wait, or could someone else pick it up? Thanks. PeterEastern (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I see that it has been two-and-one-half days. I don't know whether that is long enough to be considered a problem, but will let User:Biblioworm decide whether you should wait, or whether another volunteer moderator is needed. I will, for now, give you the advice that I give when opening a thread. Be civil and concise. There have been significant civility violations on this board, and some of the posts are long and difficult to read. The moderator is trying to get you to listen to each other to try to improve the article. That requires discussing content rather than contributors. Stop complaining about the quality of posts by other editors. Those complaints add anger and add words. For now, we will wait for User:Bejnar to return, but remember to be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I am 100% aware of where the discussion is going off the rails. I don't intend to contribute anything else until prompted to do so. Will drop another note on this thread if a few more days go by without any response from Bejnar. We much appreciate the important work you do here. Thank you. PeterEastern (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I've messaged Bejnar on his talk page. I suppose that someone else can take over if he doesn't reply in a day or two. --Biblioworm 21:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Fyi, it has now been another 2 days and Bejnar has still not come back online. No edits since 31 Jan. PeterEastern (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry I was away so long. My life took a sudden strange direction. --Bejnar (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Good to have you back and I hope if the strange direction is exciting it persists and if it was negative it is better or goes away soon. SPACKlick (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

A few days ago I put a 24 hour closing notice on this case because I was unaware of this discussion. My apologies if I complicated the matter. Anyhow, glad Bejnar is back on the job! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

American Sniper (film)

Both one of our lead volunteers and an outside administrator have expressed concerns about whether the dispute over this article is the sort of dispute that can be resolved via this forum. I concur with their reservations. The statements that have been posted here are mostly comments on contributors rather than comments on content. The dispute over this article has already had been to WP:ANI; that thread was closed, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't involve conduct issues. It does involve conduct issues that are interfering with resolution of any content issues. I see two ways that the volunteers at this board can handle this case. First, someone can agree to act as the volunteer moderator, hoping against hope to get the quarreling editors to comment on content, not contributors, knowing that dispute resolution will probably fail. Second, we can decline this case because it clearly involves conduct issues, and because the comments are mostly about conduct. I may be too pessimistic in thinking that the latter is the better option. Maybe some volunteer is more optimistic than I am. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I personally think that, regardless of whether this case is declined for moderation, or whether moderated discussion fails, this article is heading for Arbitration Clarification and Amendment requests to impose discretionary sanctions and then heading for arbitration enforcement, but that is only my opinion, and it is worth what at least you paid me for it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the dispute is as vast as you assume. It's simply a matter of deciding what are the best sources for a critique. The article talk page and a draft being developed by Erik seems to be working towards some sort of potential section but we don't know that yet. With his movie still in theaters and with it nominated for some academy awards, the final critique section will likely be written six months to a year from now by a different set of editors.--MONGO 03:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

"the final critique section will likely be written six months to a year from now by a different set of editors" Well said. WP often falls prey to massive bouts of recentism, behaving more like a daily news service than an encyclopedia. This article is one of many examples. Nothing is in context because everyday its breaking news. Meanwhile emotions run hot on the talk page as pop culture supporters and critics using WP as their POV battleground.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Battle of the Somme

The Battle of the Somme thread is showing as new, when it should be resolved. Is this a bug in the template, or confusion about how to use the template, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I closed the Battlestar Galactica thread, and it is now showing as new rather than General Close. Same question. Is this a bug in the template, or confusion about how to use the template, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon, you may not be making all the needed changes for the bot to recognize the close.The three steps are:

1. Remove the line telling the bot not to archive until XYZ date
2. Place the words: Closed, Resolved or Failed after the words: DR Case Status|
3. Place {{DRN archive top|reason= XXXXXXX ~~~~}} and {{DRN archive bottom}} at the top and bottom of the case. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The instruction that needs to be made clearer is the use of the DRN archive top and bottom templates. There is a bug anyway if using the wrong template (e.g., the hat template) when the status has been marked as closed causes it to show as new. There is also an issue about the instructions for the use of the template. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, some WP noticeboards have their own dedicated closing templates and DRN is one of them. One of the reasons for that is so that it can interact with the archive bot. The instructions for using the template are here. If you feel they are not clear then please improve them. We want them to be as clear as possible. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Pope Joan

After I accepted the case, the six registered editors and three unregistered editors have not made statements. I have put new DRN notices on their talk pages. If I don't hear from them in 48 hours, I will close the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a good policy especially if they have been editing during that period. Then it's clear they are being non-participatory. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

As a participator, I beg to disagree. The case was filed on 24 January, I made my summary statement the same day, and no action was taken by moderators until 3 February – that's ten days. Having checked several times a day for over a week and seen nothing happening, I stopped looking, only to be told that the case was going to be closed in 48 hours due to my failure to see that somebody had finally taken the case. The same thing happened after I made my second statement: three days of inactivity followed by a 24-hour ultimatum that I might easily have missed if I hadn't happened to log on that day. There should be the same standard for participants and moderators. Either everybody has to check in at least once every day, or participants are given the same latitude as mods. I know you are doing this out of the goodness your hearts for the well-being of the project, but – guess what – so are we. A little more consideration, please. Scolaire (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I mostly agree with User:Scolaire. Since WP:DRN is supposed to be a relatively fast process, everyone should be expected to check in once a day. It is true that this particular case was waiting for a moderator for a long time. I only handle one case at a time, and finally was able to get to this case. I agree that everyone should be expected to check in once a day. If Scolaire is saying that we should be required to assign a moderator within 24 or 48 or 72 hours, then I disagree, but if he or she is saying that both the moderators and the participants should be expected to check on cases within a day, I agree. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

As it turns out, of the originally named parties, none of the unregistered editors took part, which simplifies things, because it complicates matters to deal with changing addresses. Only three of the registered editors took part, and don't seem to be far apart. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I was not saying that you should be required to assign a moderator within any specified time. When you took the case, you were good enough to inform us that the DRN was go, but you posted above at the same time that you were going to close within 48 hours if we hadn't responded. It was not the delay itself, but the delay followed by the ultimatum, that I was unhappy with. Scolaire (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me restate what the timeframe was. I took the case on 3 February 2015. I waited two days for a response. Only after waiting two days for a response and getting none from anyone, I posted new DRN notices and said that I would close the case if no one responded in 48 more hours (two more days). I don't think that the use of the word "ultimatum" is fair or accurate, since closing the dispute resolution case would do nothing that would prejudice anyone's right to edit the article. If you are saying that we should clarify that participating editors are expected to check this board once a day, I agree that would be a useful statement. I don't think that using the word "ultimatum" to attack the volunteers who try to assist editors in resolving content disputes is productive, or that using the word "ultimatum" to criticize the volunteers here is likely to encourage more editors to volunteer their services here. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

What I should have said was that, to me, who had checked several times a day every day to see whether there was any progress, it felt like an ultimatum. It was not ever my intention to attack you or your colleagues. I posted originally because I was stung by Keithbob's remarks, which I felt were dismissive of participants, and the second time only to clarify that I did not mean you should be required to assign a moderator within a short time. In retrospect, I should not have bothered to post the second time, and I am sorry that what I said came across as offensive. Scolaire (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Having said that, it must be clear that there are only two of us totally committed to this DR, and both of us promptly made statements 36 hours ago. I'm now hanging again, waiting for something to happen. I thought when you said that "everyone should be expected to check in once a day", you meant that participants or moderators, depending on whose turn it was, should post something once a day, even if it's only "I'm busy IRL, I'll get back to you." Again, I'm only asking that the same standards be applied to participants and moderators. Scolaire (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no hard rule about time periods. For myself, if I find that there is no activity on a case for a few/several days then I post a note saying its becoming stale. I might even post a 24 hr closing depending on the situation. DRN can get backed up with 10 or more cases simultaneously and we have to keep things moving through. However, if I, or another volunteer gave a 24 close notice prematurely then I/we apologize. Meanwhile, I'm glad your case is proceeding now. I hope it's successful. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Can WP:DRN and WP:ANI Be in Parallel?

Should there be a ground rule that an editor cannot be pursuing dispute resolution here at the same time as pursuing a conduct issue at WP:ANI or WP:AN? This is not a hypothetical question, because I think it happened within the past few days. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes that is part of our written rules at the top of the DRN page:

We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.

If there is a case at ANI then the DRN case is disqualified and the DRN case should be closed without prejudice for refiling at a future time.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive873#User.2FAdmin_HoaryRobert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

That (I apologize for putting the link in in Web format) was filed while the Ikeda thread was in moderation, by the same requester. I didn't think that was right. The WP:ANI thread has been archived, but it doesn't seem to me to reflect well on the likelihood of an amicable resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I should raise this at WT:DRN, but I think that there is a problem, which is that the filing party is both requesting content dispute resolution, while complaining about other editors, at WP:DRN and filing a thread at WP:ANI claiming that another of the editors has made threats. Do we handle a content dispute at the same time as a conduct dispute is being pursued~ Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC) There's no unanimity of opinion among volunteers on that issue. We have a couple who will always close a case when that happens, others who will not. Though I won't generally close or refuse a thread because of an ANI case, I always reserve the right to put it on hold until the ANI case is resolved (especially if it looks like someone might actually get blocked or banned: most ANI filings do not end that way, however). If I put one on hold, I generally extend the do not archive until date for a few days to allow for that. I don't change the case status, I just tell everyone the case is on hold. Even that's pretty rare, however; I generally just keep marching along at DRN. For me a lot depends on the particular circumstances. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC) (Just FYI, copied from my talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC))

To supplement: For me the big question is ultimately whether the ANI filing is likely to interfere with what we're doing here and, if so, for how long and how much. Many ANI filings are clueless, either by newcomers or even by regulars who haven't before been involved in heated controversy, and often don't remain active for more than a few hours. When that's the case, it does no one a service to close a listing here, even with no prejudice against reopening. In other cases in which it's pretty clear that someone is going to get blocked (sockpuppetry, legal threats, gross and continuing misconduct), then it depends on how important the target editor is to the discussion here. But I also think that any dual filing can be closed under the rule cited by Keithbob. That rule is to prevent forum shopping (and contradictory results at different locations) and use of ANI or other conduct forums can certainly be used as one way to try to win a dispute by default, but it can also be an honest attempt to simply resolve conduct issues which are interfering with the content resolution. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any particular reason why my opinion should be of any import in this decision; but so far as it is relevant, I (the participant in DRN whom you also see hauled up before the authorities here) don't mind that there or this here, or the two in combination. Course, you might decide that it seems likely that I'm "going to get blocked (sockpuppetry, legal threats, gross and continuing misconduct)". More to the point, that particular AN/I thread is going nowhere: it has of course already been archived. -- Hoary (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Please understand that my comments, above, were in general and not pointed towards your particular situation. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course. (Incidentally, it seems that I was wrong. That the thread was archived has not prevented an accretion to it.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Ikeda

I appreciate the effort that has gone into arranging this, but I think a bit more is needed. (1) User:Ubikwit has (tentatively and politely) added a comment without being asked for it: I suggest that he/she should be invited to join. (2) The section (about one incident) to which I've just added a comment doesn't have a header. (3) The following section (about Polly Toynbee) doesn't have labeled places for comments. I could easily fix (2) and (3) myself; but precisely because I'm one of the participants, I'm reluctant to do this. -- Hoary (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary, it's best if the moderator User:SPACKlick makes these changes to the formatting.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

MY Apologies I'm caught with spotty internet at the moment and several Real Life™ issues are getting in the way of me giving this case full attention I will have to step down or hand it off for the sake of the contributing parties. SPACKlick (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your work so far, SPACKlick. I now read "Please halt discussion until a new moderator takes up this case." I'm rather busy myself and therefore shan't pay much attention to that discussion. Could somebody please ping me if/when it's reopened? NB I don't ask for preferential treatment here: I think that all the named parties should be notified. (There are only four or so of us, and I've no reason to think that I'm the one with the greatest number of other distractions.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Archiving of General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy section

Was it intended that the 'active' General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy discussion was archived? If so then it would be sensible to also archive the stray 'participant created' additional level 2 section titled 'New (dubious)source introduced by new editor=' to it. Personally, as I have noted on User:Bejnar's talk page, I think we have achieved all we are going to with this discussion so it may be best to leave it as an archive until he returns. He is only online intermittently at present, due I believe to weather challenges (snow?). Shall we give him a few days to return and say what he wants to do? PeterEastern (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

What is this "Snow" you speak of? It's 72 degrees and sunny as usual here in Los Angeles. :)-Guy Macon (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• I believe you Angelenos refer to it as "thatcoldstuffupatBigBear," or refer to it obliquely in the "decreasingsnowpack." (It ties in with the GM Streetcar page, oddly enough: the '20s drought caused a hydroelectricity shortage in LA, which helped fuel gasoline bus use..)

Getting back to the subject at hand, what's the protocol here. As I see it, except in the most obviously exceptional cases, this board deals with issues that are not under discussion elsewhere, but many egregiously bad citations, along with a few good ones, and a couple extremely solid ones, have been added. One, in particular, shows footnotes that actively contradict the writer's contention. Is there a problem re-opening it on the reliable sources board while we are waiting?Anmccaff (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Ok, from something he said I had built a picture of him showbound in Canada somewhere, although it isn't really relevant why he isn't around. My question was really about whether the discussion is deemed to be closed and the New (dubious)source introduced by new editor= section should be archived with it, or whether it should be 'unarchived. My vote is that was have achieved anything we are able to and the archiving should be wrapped up properly. PeterEastern (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

So, would this be "for," "against," or "meh" for bringing it up at the reliable source board now?Anmccaff (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I propose to raise your behaviour on the administrators board as soon as this is closed as I have mentioned already. Regrettably I don't think we can make progress on this topic without asking you to stay away for a while. PeterEastern (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you've mentioned that a good many times. How would that be relevant to the RSN request?Anmccaff (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed the stray section missed by the automatic archiving. Cases here are automatically archived after a period of time, typically 14 days, if any 24-hour period goes by without anyone making an edit. Unfortunately the last section, the one which got stranded, had the wrong kind of header (a two-equals mark header, rather than a three-mark header) which caused the bot to think it was a separate case. The case should not have autoarchived, though it's long past its ready-to-archive date, because a case will not autoarchive in that situation so long as there is at least one edit to it in every 24-hour period, which there have been in this case, but the most recent edits were in the stranded section which due to its improper header the bot thought to be a separate case. In this situation the entire case should ordinarily be restored to the main page, but it appears to me that at least some of the primary participants feel that it was done. I think that this means that it probably should remain archived unless Benjar chooses to restore it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks. PeterEastern (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Cases "Needing Attention"

I see that three cases are marked as "needing attention". Does that mean that they need moderators? I know I won't take the first one because I am not neutral; I am annoyed at the conduct of one of the parties. The second, Loma Linda University Medical Center, appears to have been filed by an IP at about the same time as the IP was blocked for edit-warring. I am not optimistic about taking a case filed by an IP, since the unregistered editor probably is now using a different address. The third, 24, appears, based on the statements, to be a dispute about, of all things, the use of periods in abbreviations. Is there any reason why I shouldn't go ahead and take it? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert,

1. Yes, NEEDS ATTENTION almost always means "needs a coordinator"
2. I have taken the Loma Linda case and it is underway.
3. I've close the 24 (TV series) case as the involved parties never showed up

Thanks for all your help at DRN! -- -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

New coordinator

It seems that User:MrScorch6200 has been inactive lately. What should be done about the new coordinator position? --Biblioworm 16:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

He has email enabled, did you try emailing him to remind him that he needs to be active this month (though I don't see that as being so critical as with some other folks since he's been coordinator once before) and is still willing to take the position? If he doesn't respond, I'd be happy to take the slot if you don't want to hold over, or to swap your upcoming June-July term with my August-September one if you do want to hold over but don't want to do three terms in a row. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll try email; thanks. I've personally discovered that I prefer actually handling cases rather than doing the administrative part of it, so I'd prefer not to do two terms in a row. Thanks, --Biblioworm 21:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

MrScorch has made about 15 edits in the past 5 months. That doesn't portend well in my opinion. I think someone should email him and get a firm commitment that he is going to check the DRN several times a week during his tenure. Otherwise, he'll just be a figurehead and if regulars like me and Tman have to be away for 3-5 days the board can get backlogged and impotent very quickly. So please Biblioworm I encourage you to contact and qualify him for his position.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Why are my discussions not changing to in progress?

Hi all, I am sorry but I was a bit busy for the last few days. I am facing a problem that disputes I participate in do not change into In Progress automatically. This has happened before and I have no fix for this. Can someone help me here? --Wikishagnik (talk) 05:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Wikishagnik, The case status needs to be changed manually. You can find instructions here. Thanks!  :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I've changed your case status to NEEDS ATTENTION as the case has gone stale and the bot is set to autoarchive it if 24 hrs passes with no comments. So it clearly NEEDS ATTENTION from you and, more importantly, the [non] participants. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Keithbob, I have added a closing note to the dispute but have not manualy closed the discussion because I dont want any disputing editor to come back and complain that the discussion was closed hastily. I know that usually disputes should not take this long, but this particular discussion is delicate either bacause we have an undeclared WP:COIN issue or a serious WP:BATTLEGROUND issue (or both). Please let all parties to respond for say 24 hours before taking action, otherwise any disputing editor might choose to reopen the dispute claiming unfair treatment.--Wikishagnik (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

No worries my friend, I will not manually close the discussion. I'll leave it in your capable hands :-) Just be careful the bot doesn't do it. BTW you can manually change the bots auto close date. If you need help with that let me know. I'm happy to have the case open as long as its moving forward. I'm glad you are so diligently shepherding it to its best possible outcome. Thank you!! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

One Week

Q4 in the FAQ says that typically a case will remain open no more than one week. It is very rare for a case that is actually opened to be resolved in one week. Is this statement realistic? If not, is there a political or other reason why we leave it in the FAQ, or should it be changed? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It actually says, "ideally no more than a week" (emphasis added). That actually makes some sense in light of the two-week autoarchive bot. If you're not working quickly and fairly directly to a close of some kind after a week, then the case is probably moribund. It can go on longer than two weeks, of course, either by a volunteer extending the do-not-archive-until date or by not letting any 24-hour period pass without an edit, but this forum is not really intended to be used for complex disputes which go on longer than that. It can be used for them, especially if they're making progress towards a resolution, but that's not its primary mission. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay. However, it is very rare for a case to be resolved in a week. A case can fail in a week, or can be generally closed in a week. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

See the first sentence of the main page header, "This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes..." (emphasis added). Disputes which are going to take more than a week or two should generally be referred to RFC or to MEDCOM, both of which are better designed and suited for lengthy resolutions. While we're flexible enough to allow volunteers to take on longer or more complex resolutions here, that's not really our mission. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Most of our disputes are, in my opinion, small content disputes, in that they don't affect the entire article or a large amount of text. However, if some other moderators know of some marvelous technique for getting editors to agreement in one or two rounds of discussion, please let me know what it is. I see that TransporterMan has said that disputes that will take more than a week or two may require some alternate mechanism. I agree that disputes can often be resolved in two weeks. However, the FAQ refers to one week, and that, in my opinion, usually isn't feasible, and may lead to disappointment or even bitterness. I would just like to see the FAQ changed to say something like "one to two weeks", because "one week" raises false hopes, especially since many filing parties come in here with a completely misguided sense of what we do. I hope that we can continue to solve two-week disputes without sending the parties off to formal mediation, which takes months. As I said, it is very rare for a case to be resolved constructively in one week. Cases can fail in one week (and often do, for various reasons). Can we change the FAQ, or is there a reason why we want to create false hopes or false deadlines? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I've revised the answer to FAQ question 4 to read as follows:

While cases may be resolved or closed sooner, our maintenance bot will automatically archive and, in effect, close a case after fourteen days unless there is at least one edit to it every twenty-four hours after the fourteen day period has passed. The fourteen day period runs from the date the case is first posted. Volunteers may extend the automatic closing date if significant progress is being made towards resolution, but are encouraged to try to resolve cases whenever possible in two weeks or less or, if they cannot be resolved during that time, to refer them to a request for comments or to formal mediation.

I believe that's about as straightforward as we can get. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that the changes are an improvement. I agree that if a dispute is too complex to be capable of being resolved (or failed) in two weeks, it may require formal mediation (this being informal mediation). I wouldn't be optimistic about using an RFC to resolve a case that can't be resolved in two weeks, but an RFC is often the best way of dealing with a case where the editors won't compromise. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I think both of you have made valid points. I also feel Tman's changes address both concerns and is a good amendment to the FAQ. It retains our mission of addressing minor disputes while allowing the flexibility for longer resolutions as appropriate.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Two Weeks

I would like to point out Overland Limited as an example of a case that seems to be progressing reasonably toward resolution and has been taking two weeks. Thank you for changing the FAQ so that it doesn't seem to rush cases. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Pseudoscience Case

I am willing to take the Pseudoscience case, but have certain concerns. First, I will add the editor who was overlooked. Second, I am willing to listen to IPs, but won't try to keep track of addresses shifting. (That's a concession on my part, because I am wary of unregistered editors in the first place, but policy says that they are permitted.) Third, on first glance, it appears that an RFC may be in order, because there doesn't appear to be much middle ground. If the editors can't agree, I will ask if they are willing to let the matter be decided by an RFC. Is that satisfactory? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. While it's good to ask and offer to mediate the formulation of the wording of the RFC request, in the right circumstances where I thought that an RFC was absolutely the right way to go I wouldn't even hesitate to close the DRN case as a referral to RFC and to file the RFC myself. I would not however, whoever files it, take a position or enter a !vote in the RFC and if I filed it myself I'd make it clear that I was neutral and abstaining as to whatever the proper outcome might be. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've taken the case. I have, among other questions, asked whether an RFC would resolve the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this dispute, I would like to point out a related problem at The Mismeasure of Man, with disagreement about the neutrality of the reception section - see Talk:The Mismeasure of Man#Reception Section is Ridiculous .28POV Tag.29. There hasn't been a ton of discussion there yet, but that will probably need an RFC too. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Failed

I apparently acted too quickly in closing the dispute as resolved by the RFC. The disputants so far have only engaged in threaded discussion and have not !voted in the RFC. I have, after closing the thread, but before its archival, changed its status to Failed. Oh well. I thought that they wanted to resolve it by RFC, and I thought that they said that. If they want to argue, then threaded discussion is better than edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Islam and Antisemitism

I have two comments. First, the case isn't listed in the list of cases. Either the case request wasn't formatted properly (and formatting isn't easy), or there may be an issue with the template or the bot. Second, I made the suggestion that the issue might be one that can be dealt with better by formal mediation than by informal mediation here, in view of its size and complexity. Does anyone want to agree or disagree? It looks to me as though it could take months to work on, and that is more the timeframe for formal mediation than for this informal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. I've never done this before. I certainly have no interest in anything dragging on for more than a week. I desire to edit in a serene atmosphere, not edit-war, let alone take so much time off an article to thrash out principles. If rejected, I'll take it to mediation (and no doubt ruin the formatting there as well).Nishidani (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Rainbow table

I have tried to clean up a malformed request, which appears to be about Rainbow table rather than Rainbow. It may need more cleanup or may be too malformed for cleanup. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The cleanup was done very well, but I've closed it for no discussion/not a dispute. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. After doing the cleanup, I still couldn't figure out what the IP wanted, which is not a dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Both that issue and the next, the MOS issue, are still showing up as New in the listing. Do we, the volunteer editors, all need instruction in whatever second language is used to maintain the list of cases? Some of us try to maintain the list, and we still can't get it right. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert and thanks for all your good efforts here at DRN. Everything looks up to date now.............. One thing you should know is that when you make changes to the status of a case the change shows up right away within the case itself. However, the chart at the top of the DRN page is updated by the bot and that takes some time, usually a few hours but I've never timed it. So be patient with updates to the chart at the top of the page. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Manual of Style Issue, Again

I took it on myself to close a dispute resolution request involving the Manual of Style about capitalization. What is obvious is that the filer wanted us to persuade another editor to withdraw a "disruptive RFC", and our opening statement says that we don't handle a case if there is already an RFC, disruptive or otherwise. The history is that there are conduct issues, and that ArbCom has already authorized discretionary sanctions for MOS disputes. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Good call. My only suggestion would be to offer alternative solutions to editors when rejecting a case. Otherwise they feel frustrated that there is no where to go. Some resources you can suggest are: WP:DR, WP:DRR and WP:DISCFAIL. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

In this case, with what is primarily a conduct issue, tendentious editing about punctuation and capitalization, the alternate resolution is only arbitration enforcement. There really is nowhere else to go within the content resolution arena, because it isn't content. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding an Editor

One of the parties to the discussion of Magneto invited another editor, who made comments. I am assuming that this action was reasonable, and am adding the additional editor to the list of editors. I changed the heading of his comments for consistency. Am I correct that it is reasonable to add another editor to a discussion in DRN? I know that in certain situations such as contested RFCs there is a rule against canvassing. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I think what you did was fine since there was a invitation. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Normally in that situation I would check the talk page and see if the new editor was someone who was already part of a current or prior talk page discussion on that article. If so I would add them but I would also consider adding other parties active on the talk page (past or present) to avoid any sandbagging whether intentional or innocent.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator, April-May

[Prior discussion here.] As it appears that MrScorch6200 will not reappear on wiki for the coordinator stint and since, therefore, he's not been active here for the last month — he's not been around since February and hasn't edited here at DRN since September (main page) or January (coordinator page) — to take the April-May coordinator position, I've struck out his name and listed myself for that period on the coordinator list. If anyone who has been active here for the last month or so would like to take the position, I'll be happy to cede it to them if they step up in the next couple of days: please just replace me on the coordinator page and drop me a note on my talk page to let me know you've done it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Curiously he is marked as online on his TP _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh guys, I'm always here Thanks TMan for assuming my role, I don't believe I'd be in the best of shape to do so myself as I have not been active and must catch up on some things. As a small side note, I've listed myself as the co-ord for August - September, as I know I will be able to be active during this time. I hope to become active once again soon; I've missed this place! As always, cheers! MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 18:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all for clarifying the upcoming coord change. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Good to have you back, Scorch. I'll look forward to seeing you around. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Question

I understand that it's counterproductive and only for the harshest of circumstances, and I haven't gotten near considering it, but is it the practice at the DRN to request an administrator to punish a participant for breaking the mediator's rules as spelled out at Wikipedia:Mediation#Control of mediation? Kharkiv07^Talk 00:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know it's never been done (either at DRN or anywhere else, for that matter), though that policy certainly permits it. Practical considerations generally interfere with its use. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I can think of a very few circumstances under which I might request it, in particular if one of the parties was editing the comments of another editor. Minor violations of the mediator's rules of mediation are common, and are generally dealt with by hatting inappropriate comments or by cautioning the offending editor, very seldom by requesting sanctions against the editor. Moderate violations of the rules of mediation are usually dealt with by closing the discussion and telling them to discuss it somewhere else. That may result in one of the participants reporting a conduct dispute at WP:ANI, which may result in a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

One of the more serious incidents that happened here was earlier this week, when a volunteer cautioned the participants in a discussion that had not yet been accepted for mediation to stop the threaded back-and-forth discussion, and one of the editors actually rebuked the volunteer. That resulted in the thread being closed as a failure. It also resulted in a request at WP:AN for administrators to pay attention to the talk page for possible disruptive discussion. I haven't actually seen the mediator request sanctions, because the mediator will generally just abandon the mediation and let the contending editors dig their own holes. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

For me I would only involve an admin if a participant was grossly and repeatedly abusive per WP:NPA. Minor misbehavior is common in DR scenarios because tension has built up so I try to be patient but firm. I'll leave or close a case if the participants are repeatedly disrespectful as they were in the case you mentioned above then I would leave or close but I would not involve an Admin. In the end its a personal decision how to handle it.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Magneto (generator)

I will be closing the discussion of Magneto (generator) by using an RFC. Should I close it as Resolved, or as a General Close? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd do it as a General, but I generally don't use Resolved or Failed unless that result is absolutely clear. Frankly, it really doesn't make a lot of difference. At one time our founder Steve Zhang had the idea that we'd compile statistics about how well this forum (and others: Steve worked diligently to reform all of DR at WP) works and those tags were implemented to help do that, but that idea never came to fruition, partially in my opinion because of the very issue you raise: sometimes, perhaps often, it's not clear which one to use sometimes because of lack of standards and definitions but more often because the facts simply aren't clear. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The statement has been made that, once moderated discussion begins, a thread should be closed either as Resolved or as Failed. It appears that you disagree; so do I. It is possible for discussion of a thread to begin, and then to end in a way that is neither a success nor a failure, but something in between. I still like the idea of trying to keep statistics, although, as you say, they may not be particularly useful. I also think that occasionally a thread should be closed as Failed even before a mediator is chosen. That would be Istrian exodus, which was closed without a mediator, because one of the participants insulted a volunteer. I will close this one as General. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Robert I appreciate your support but just for the record I closed the case you mention because the participants refused to abide by DNR guidelines and were using DRN as a talk page and were uncooperative. It wasn't because I felt insulted, it was just a procedural decision. But, I thank you for your concern and assistance. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, insulting a volunteer just was a way of showing that they weren't trying to collaborate, and there is nothing that we can do for editors who aren't trying. They will eventually have WP:ARBMAC deployed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Without any express or implied reference to any of the editors in Istrian exodus or any other pending or recently pending case, just let me note that I am a real believer in the idea that dispute resolution can provide a substantial service to the disputants and to the encyclopedia by simply providing, albeit unintentionally, a time-out break in an ongoing dispute even when those cases are closed without any mediation services actually being provided. Such a break allows people to take a breath and sometimes decide to drop the stick. Also, when one party is editing quasi-disruptively time wounds all heels. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I have never seen a case where harm to the encyclopedia was done by seeking to use a dispute resolution procedure, even if the procedure did not work. I have seen cases where using an aggressive dispute resolution procedure, such as WP:ANI, harmed an editor, via WP:BOOMERANG. I think we agree. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer needed for Providence (religious movement)

A volunteer is needed to take the Providence (religious movement) case, which is now ready for that. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

It looks like MontanaBW has picked it up! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Dipping toe

OK, so I gained a lot of respect for this process based on the situation with which I was most recently involved. So I'd like to return the favor and dip my toe in to see if I can keep a cool head when I am an uninvolved volunteer. I welcome anyone who wants to offer advice or suggestions as I pick some of the ones that look halfway resolvable... (I will not tempt Murphy's Law by saying "easier.") Feel free to administer minnow or trout slaps if I really screw up the procedures and I hope I can help more than harm! Montanabw^(talk) 04:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Do not, under any circumstances, get between two people and their horses. (Just my advice) Kharkiv07^Talk 04:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Heh, Kharkiv07 is wise, in fact a volunteer moderator could wind up feeling like the poor sots to suffer this fate: Hanged, drawn and quartered, or maybe just this one: Dismemberment#Torn_apart_by_four_horses. Or maybe just being dragged away by wild horses. Montanabw^(talk) 04:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Please dip two toes and glance at our guidelines. Welcome to DRN! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Moderating

@SourceOhWatch (SrotahaUvacha): Hello! Thank you for taking an interest into moderating at the DRN! Unfortunately, there are a few issues with your attempt. The goal of the DRN is to provide a form for discussion, not for a moderator to come in and give their final opinion on the matter, especially since you're an involved party in the dispute. You also need to add your username to the list of volunteers. I'd recommend that if you want to try to moderate you pick a different case in which you're not involved, but thanks anyway! Kharkiv07^Talk 15:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Kharkiv07: and the other folks here: I'd be willing to tackle this case, but not sure what to do with the comments the above user has already inserted. If one of the coordinators of this project can do the appropriate cleanup to clarify the case is in fact open for a new volunteer, I can guarantee that I am completely uninvolved on the issue. Montanabw^(talk) 04:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• @TransporterMan: is the coordinator at the moment, see what he thinks about that case, I'm not sure what to do about it. Kharkiv07^Talk 19:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm closing this case as the other participant says they will [not] engage at DRN (as is their right) and this case is not ready to be opened yet at the participants have not been notified of the DRN case and have not given their summary statements. I've therefore changed the status to NEW. I've also left a message for Magic Cow and asked them to read our guidelines before engaging further on any cases. On the bright side we are happy to have two new volunteers MontanaBW and MagicCow who I'm sure will make fine moderators once they learn the ropes. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Opinions vs mediation (a short essay)

Over the weekend several people have expressed opinions about offering opinions versus engaging in moderated discussion/mediation. Because of the open nature of DRN, the exact manner in which a volunteer provides dispute resolution is largely up to the volunteer. In my opinion, therefore, opinion-giving is an acceptable practice (and, indeed, I've engaged in it here several times), but whether it is the best and wisest technique depends largely on the circumstances. First, however, let me note that we're not talking about opinion-giving in the course of mediation. That's a natural part of mediation under the proper circumstances, such as those in which the parties remain stuck after some further moderated discussion here.

What we are talking about here is opinion-giving in place of mediation. I believe that to be appropriate only when there is an absolutely clearly-correct result to the dispute which cannot be reasonably disputed, for example, when one editor is clearly and unmistakably engaging in original research, is attempting to insert unsourced disputed material, or is arguing against an absolutely clear consensus (many other examples are possible). In that situation, then an opinion is appropriate and, indeed, is even appropriate (with proper research at the various talk pages where the dispute has been taking place) even before the other editors have weighed in with summaries (especially if, as is often the case, the filing editor is the one on the wrong side of the dispute). When there is an absolutely-clearly-correct outcome of that nature, I've been known to give my opinion and close the case as resolved even before the other editors have weighed in because there is no other resolution possible and there's no reason for discussion. That is, as you can see, very different from the kind of opinion given at Third Opinion, which can be an off-the-cuff opinion which can involve a "what's better" weighing of values and positions even if there is not an absolutely correct outcome.

But to give such an opinion at DRN you have to have a very solid knowledge and understanding of Wikipedia practices and policy. And one thing I've learned through my experience working here and at 3O and Medcom is that it can be amazing just how much you can think you know when you actually do not (and just how embarrassed you can be when that happens). Like Davy Crockett said, "Always, be sure you're right, then go ahead." (Remembering that sometimes, like Davy, you may end up at the Alamo.)

But how about the "soft" opinions, like what are offered at 3O? Are they ever appropriate here? (As I said above, I think that they can be part of a mediator's toolbox, but that's too complicated a topic to go into in depth in this discussion.) But are they ever appropriate as a bare substitute for mediation? I'm not willing to say never (and again how to be a volunteer here is largely left up to the volunteer), but it's hard for me to conceive of a situation where they would be better.

Let me close with this reminder: Our first obligation here is always to do what is best for the encyclopedia, and resolutions here always need to make that the first priority. While we must preserve our neutrality, neutrality does not mean allowing or guiding disputants into resolutions which are not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. That's the reason a straight-up opinion can sometimes be the right approach.

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

A very thoughtful treatment. Cheers. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Good thoughts T-man. I feel the volunteer is responsible for upholding WP policy and guidelines. So when I feel guidelines are being violated I speak up clearly even though guidelines can be, and are, interpreted differently by different editors. Someone has to stick up for the pedia, especially in DRN cases with inexperienced editors. And yes, we all have our own style of mediation. There is no right or wrong way, just as long as the job of dispute resolut'n gets done. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Good essay. I assume that it is partly in response to recent good-faith efforts to supply opinions in place of mediation. I would say that in many cases at DRN, opinions by neutral editors may be useful as preliminaries before mediation, and it may be appropriate for the mediator to invite the opinion-offerer to participate. I would say that in the majority of cases at DRN, opinion is not a substitute for mediation, only a supplement to it. There is also a type of case that we sometimes see where an expert opinion, by an experienced mediator here at DRN, is a substitute for mediation because of an expert opinion that the case is not presented in a state for mediation (e.g., dispute poorly defined, parties not defined, preconditions for mediation not met). Sometimes such cases may later be ready for mediation, for instance, if the filing party better defines the dispute and the parties. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk Page Template

There is a template at the top of the talk page for the APL programming language, Talk: APL (programming language). Should that template be removed now that I am moderating the case, or should that template be left in place until moderated discussion is complete? Also, I haven't usually seen that template on talk pages for articles that I have mediated. Are there guidelines about its use that we should be aware of? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Never seen that template before but it seems appropriate for temporary placement on the talk page where the dispute is taking place.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I pulled the template from the talk page after I failed moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Nice.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Order of Procedures for Content Disputes

I just had an interesting exchange with User:MarnetteD, after she had commented on the film awards thread. I asked her whether she wished to be a participant, or whether she only had an opinion. As we have noted, outside opinions are often useful, although they are not a substitute for mediation. Anyway, she said that it had been her understanding that the order of steps to resolve content disputes was: (1) talk page; (2) third opinion; (3) RFC; (4) only after this point, DRN. I don't know if that, which is relatively rigid, was true in the past. I know that some disputes have to bypass Third Opinion, because it is for disputes between two editors, not for disputes between three or more editors. It is my understanding, and please correct me or clarify if I am mistaken, that the present DRN and the RFC process are more or less alternates. My guess is that what MarnetteD saw as DRN, the very last step, is probably formal mediation by the Mediation Committee via RFM, Request for Mediation. Am I more or less correct that RFC and DRN are reasonable next steps after the talk page doesn't resolve things and there are three or more editors (or the third opinion failed)? I know that the two procedures cannot be done at the same time, because an RFC will cause DRN to be rejected, but sometimes a DRN mediator will suggest an RFC instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I don't want to accept the film awards thread, but it appears to me that it is better served by an RFC than by moderated discussion. Is it permitted for a volunteer to suggest an RFC instead of moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a note (two actually) I am likely operating on procedure that is years out of date. If so my apologies for any confusion that has caused. Also, I am a male. No worries on that mistake though as it has happened before. Any input is appreciated as it will help me from getting things the wrong way around in future. MarnetteD|Talk 02:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The "natural" progression is talk page, 3O (if only 2 editors are involved), DRN, Medcom, and then RFC, but there is no required or fixed order except for adequate talk page discussion happening first. For example, our policy over at the Mediation Committee (where I'm a member and the current chairperson) allows disputes to go there directly from the article talk page, skipping over all the other processes. (On the other hand, the Medcom chairperson has the discretion to refuse a case which would benefit from DR at a different level and I do, in fact, frequently refuse cases on that basis.) Why do I put RFC at the top? First, for the practical reason is that it's the one that never gets closed when parallel processes are pending at two venues. For example, if an editor files at DRN and then also files a RFC, it's the DRN case, not the RFC which will be closed (simply because there's no one who has the right to close the RFC because the other process is under way). Second, unlike all the others which are some form of opinion-giving or mediation, RFC involves — at least in theory — the entire community which, at the end of the day, is the highest authority here. I work at 3O, DRN, and Medcom and will conclude by noting that I've never seen a case which has been undertaken unsuccessfully at one of those venues move backwards to a "lower" venue, though I have seen them move up the natural progression. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it permitted for a volunteer at this noticeboard to suggest that a dispute would be better resolved by an RFC than by moderated discussion? Several disputes that I have seen recently have had a yes-no nature (list the awards or don't list the awards, manned or crewed) that looks better suited to RFC than to moderation. I think that some editors who bring disputes here expect that the moderator will decide the dispute, which isn't the moderator's job. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. One of the purposes of DRN is to refer disputes to venues where they're better suited. Indeed, the original concept of DRN was that only the most simple disputes would be handled here and any which were even slightly complex would be referred out. I think that it's safe to say that idea has not survived, but the ability to merely refer has absolutely survived. Indeed, you don't even have to "suggest" it (though you certainly can do so and discuss the suggestion); if you think RFC is clearly the best way to go you can just close the case as a referral. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Folks, please forgive my intrusion, but where is the progression that is mentioned above [(1) talk page; (2) third opinion... etc.] stated and/or explained. I'm embarrassed to admit this, but I have never noticed this proscribed process laid out. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know that it's laid out to that degree anywhere, but WP:DRN and WP:3O both stipulate that there must be a pre-existing discussion, so the Talk page precedes either of those. DonIago (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The Mediation Committee policy also requires talk page discussion as a prerequisite for formal mediation. As for that sequence being prescribed, the first sentence of my 12 April post, just above, says, "The 'natural' progression is talk page, 3O (if only 2 editors are involved), DRN, Medcom, and then RFC, but there is no required or fixed order except for adequate talk page discussion happening first." (Emphasis added.) That's the natural progression because it moves from the most informal to the most formal and from the easiest to the most complex. (If you're just talking about the part about talk page discussion always being required first, that requirement is set out in the instructions of each type of dispute resolution, but is also reflected in the third paragraph of this section of the Dispute Resolution policy.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I would add that all the different DR options are there to resolve. To eliminate disputes. Some modalities are better suited to different situations. The most important thing is to use the DR option that has the most chance of success. That depends, in many cases, on what process the participants are will participate in and are willing to respect the outcome since most DR processes are voluntary and non-binding.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, so my feelings of being severely policy ignorant were unfounded. I fully understand and appreciate the benefit of Talk page discussion and that it needs to happens before all else. I had just never seen the process laid out like that. I guess I'm surprised at the fact that its so completely ignored by so many. The activity at ANI is just one indication of this. I plan to update my essay WP:Don't be a WikiBigot with this information. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Female infanticide in India

It is mentioned above that a thread can be closed as referred to RFC if that is clearly the proper disposition. I propose that we do that with Female infanticide in India, regardless of whether the other editor responds, because there appears to be one question, whether to include the image in question, that can be better discussed by threaded discussion at the RFC and better decided by the community than by two editors and a mediator. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Value of DRN

I just looked through the archives and found some rather discouraging statistics. Out of the last 46 cases only one was marked as Resolved. Four were marked as Failed and the other 40 were marked as Closed. What's not working? Anything we can do to improve the efficacy of this forum? Thoughts? Suggestions? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

We could mark as Resolved those cases that we Close due to insufficient Talk page discussion or that either start out as or turn into conduct matters? (ducks)

But it does beg the question...of those 46 how many shouldn't really have come here to begin with? I wouldn't consider a Close a bad thing if it was never going to end any other way. DonIago (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

We also need to remember that just because a dispute does not get resolved here that doesn't mean that we haven't helped the situation. Two ways that can occur without having a positive resolution is to focus the issues for future discussion and by simply letting folks work most of the fight out of them. Because we're limited to mediation or opinion giving, the fact is that by the time most disputes get here with enough discussion for us to actually take them that they're already incapable of resolution. The same is true in the real world: Only a relatively small number of cases referred to court-ordered mediation actually settle, since those that are inclined to settle mostly already have settled. And most of those cases are more likely to settle than those here because the parties actually have something at stake, unlike here. That's about the failed's. I don't consider the large number of "closed's" to be significant. I'd wager that most if not all of those fall into one of three categories: insufficient discussion, conduct dispute, or insufficient acceptance and there's good reasons for not accepting any of those. None of those reasons are immune from reconsideration, of course. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Good points. Any other comments, observations or suggestions?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I will add a few comments. First, it has been said before that maybe the categories are not useful. I think that is true, and is especially true because the definition of "Resolved" is so restrictive that it will seldom happen. A case is not "resolved" unless the multiple editors agree to the same wording of the article. That will only happen if they weren't that far apart and the mediator is able to persuade them of something. If the mediator is able to persuade the disputing editors that an RFC is appropriate, the mediator is supposed to close the case as "Closed", but, if the editors are not tendentious, they will accept the result of the RFC, and that is a positive resolution. TransporterMan said that Closed discussions fall into three categories: insufficient discussion; conduct dispute; or insufficient acceptance. That is true of cases that are Closed before being accepted, but a lot of cases are Closed after being opened, as neither Resolved nor Failed. Maybe we need another type of disposition, or we need to understand that cases can be Closed after being opened. I would also add that a status of Failed actually may be productive. If the editors won't compromise and won't agree to RFC, then there probably is a conduct dispute, and the history at DRN is useful at ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I do notice that a lot of cases come here where the filing party doesn't understand DRN. A common entry in the "what do you want DRN to do" is of the nature of "get the other editor to see my way". Sometimes the filing party is still willing to mediate, and sometimes RFC is possible. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Good points, maybe we could have a close label called "Semi-resolved." Something that indicates that progress was made without full resolution.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a closing status of "Semi-resolved" or "Progress made" would be helpful. Maybe all cases that are closed after mediation starts that are not fully resolved or failed should get that status. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, to repeat myself, a status of "Failed" does not mean that the work done here was useless or a failure. It may help the community, the enforcement admins, or the arbs to determine what the conduct issues were if the issue goes (as it is likely to after a fail) to ANI, arbitration enforcement, or arbitration. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello all :). I hope you are all well. Measures of success is something important (and something I initially implemented at DRN, but was very manual and honestly too tedious to keep up at the level I did when I was a Wikimedia Fellow. I think we can broaden the scenarios where "resolved" is used to include resolved outside of DRN, and we can create a status for cases that should not belong at DRN (refer to T:AIV which I created years ago that does this) so the definition of closed can be tightened to cases that were opened, belonged here, but discussion petered out (failed is when we deem successful resolution is unlikely). Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 13:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)