This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
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.
The R2-45 case was apparently manually filed. It had none of the formatting or fields that are created by the template and then parsed by the maintenance bot. In the past, manually filed cases have caused the bot to break and have had to be manually removed, so I deleted the case. I also advised the filing party that it was stated primarily as a conduct dispute, since he stated that other editors were engaging in article ownership, and that conduct disputes involving areas that are under ArbCom discretionary sanctions are best dealt with at Arbitration Enforcement. R2-45 is a controversial subject area associated with Scientology. (To be sure, a controversial subject area associated with Scientology and a subject area associated with Scientology are synonymous.) Do any other volunteers have any comments? Do we need clearer instructions that cases should not be filed manually? It has only very rarely been necessary to delete manually filed cases because very few cases have been manually filed. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I am retiring from wikipedia. The stress, duplicious nature of people, the refusal of admins to follow the basic concepts they agreed to, and other issues have made me decide to retire.
The following actions need to be taken over:
I am willing to show how to run it (or let someone else run/manage it) but I am done with wikipedia. Hasteur ( talk) 19:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
There has been a long running debate as to whether electronic harassment is real or delusional. The definitive cited source on the subject would seem to be "Mind Games" by the Washington Post: Mind Games which describes both sides of the controversy and leaves it an open question. That is how the Wikipedia article should also be, surely? Yet, there are always editors in abundance who want to negate the controversy and define EH as evidence of a delusion. This has come to a focus recently for me in an attempt to correct this one-sided editing. My edit was quickly reverted and I am outnumbered but sure that they are in the wrong. We have discussed the issue in the Talk page for many months now and still neither side is giving way. The edit in question:[ opinion assumed to be fact] Jed Stuart ( talk) 05:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Jed Stuart has some questions that I will try to answer. I agree that this is a very controversial article; however, every article that we discuss is controversial, because it wouldn't come here it it weren't controversial. He asks about whether there is a procedure for selection of a moderator. The answer is that we generally have a shortage of available moderators, and this noticeboard is used for relatively short discussions. It wouldn't be consistent with our objective to get topics discussed in one to two weeks to first discuss the selection of a moderator. A moderator volunteers to take the case, and the case moves forward. Waiting for three days isn't the way this noticeboard works. Robert McClenon ( talk) 13:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC) If you want a longer, more deliberate discussion, which might be appropriate in this case, I would suggest that you might request formal mediation. Mediation cases sometimes run for a few months. You are welcome to request formal mediation at this point. Robert McClenon ( talk) 13:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC) If you don't want to request formal mediation, or if there isn't agreement to formal mediation, the next step for a content dispute would be a Request for Comments. Disruptive editing can be reported at WP:ANI, but we hope that this issue doesn't have to go to ANI. Robert McClenon ( talk) 13:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Should this be summarily removed? The editor in question not only added themselves improperly, but the information they added appears dubious and at the time I'm writing this they've edited fewer than 10 times, and most of those edits were to the Volunteer page. I don't think they're ready to be a volunteer here anytime soon. DonIago ( talk) 13:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Dontmakemetypepasswordagain: When I checked in I saw the ThePlatypusofDoom's demand to shorten the upgraded text and his closing of the case 4 hours later. You were absolutely right while rejecting the demand: we must not lose our self-respect even if the opinion of prominent lawyers is announced fringe or nonsignificant by Wikipedia law expert or its moderator that made a lot of mistakes. Yagasi ( talk) 04:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
COATRACK? What nonsense. @ Robert McClenon: surely you do realize that "policy opinions" are unconstructive if they're completely unfounded?
Robert McClenon closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Southern_Levant, because "also pending at WP:ANI", referring to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Username_in_section_heading.2FPersonal_Attacks, apparently. The issue at WP:ANI is about a behavioral issue, and was opened at least a day after this discussion. I don't think that there is any substantial reason to close the attempt at dispute resolution here because of it. I call upon Robert McClenon to review his closure. Debresser ( talk) 00:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
The bot seems to have stopped working, because it isn't marking cases that were closed as premature or badly filed as closed. Has someone taken over management of the bot? User:TransporterMan, User:Hasteur - What is the status of the bot? Has someone taken it over? Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Is anyone willing to moderate, or should this case be closed for lack of a moderator? It is marginal as far as the criteria for acceptance because of the comments that can be read as religious polemics. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Robert McClenon Can I know why this case was closed? Hammad.511234 ( talk) 20:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Please do, because this is injustice. Hammad.511234 ( talk) 20:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the administrators did not help, and just dismissed the case, that's why I came here. Hammad.511234 ( talk) 02:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
No, administrators, on another page. A demanding tone...? Well, I'm sorry if it came out like that. And I'm actually Canadian, lol. I known the case has been reopened, and I'm happy something's being done. Thank you anyways. Hammad.511234 ( talk) 23:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Many participants here are great with dealing with conflicts, must decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:
You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
The present process seems to include a "Dispute overview" by the reporting editor, then from other editors a "Summary of dispute", followed by a "First statements by editors" by all. In many cases the first statement can be the same as the dispute overview or the summary of dispute. Therefore I propose to make the first statements step optional. I think that asking for a "first" statement, which is not a first is bureaucratic and even a bit confusing. The process will benefit from streamlining it. I definitely do not think that a "First statement" should be a prerequisite for continuation of the mediation process. Debresser ( talk) 13:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request#Unable to create request. Cross posting here because that talk page might not be watchlisted. Felsic2 ( talk) 19:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I just posted a test case and it posted correctly. Thanks to Enterprisey for the fix. Felsic2 should try reposting his request. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 07:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC) (Current DRN Coordinator)
Two threads need moderators. Volunteers are asked to open the two threads that are waiting for moderators. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
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.
When trying to sort out a content issue, an editor tries to stifle Talk Page discussion by immediately archiving the discussion, saying that the "discussion is closed". Is this edit warring? Is there a suitable way to deal with this tactic? Santamoly ( talk) 20:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Guy Macon wrote, on the project page: 'DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors. If anyone has a problem with this, let me know and we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer.' I mostly agree, but disagree only in the idea that any dispute resolution volunteer should even consider accepting a case in which one of the editors wants to discuss other editors. I would like to emphasize that, in my opinion, no editor should ever be focusing on the behavior of other editors. Guy is right. If there really is a content dispute and editors are willing to discuss content, talking about content may make any conduct issues, such as stubbornness, go away. If there really is a dispute that is primarily about conduct, this isn't the right place, and isn't even the least wrong place. The least wrong place to discuss editor conduct is either WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
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.
Was this case handled appropriately: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Expulsion_of_Cham_Albanians
It was essentially opened and then closed within a few hours. I would have preferred if the discussion went on so I could clarify a few points. Also, it seems, at least to me, that the volunteer is under the impression that he/she is an arbitrator.
Could it be reopened? DevilWearsBrioni ( talk) 23:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by DevilWearsBrioni ( talk • contribs) 14:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Although Muslim Chams were not eager to fight on the side of the Ottoman army during the Balkan Wars, they were nevertheless treated by the Greek army as de facto enemies, while local Christians were enlisted in the Greek forces. For example, a few days after the occupation of the area of Chamouria by the Greek Army, 72 or 78 Muslim notables were executed by a Greek irregular military unit in the religiously mixed town of Paramythia, evidently accused of being traitors.31 During the Balkan War, in late 1912, when Muslim Chams were fighting on the side of the Ottoman Army, and Christian Chams on that of the Greek Army, several local conflicts emerged
(UTC)
as I mentioned i cannot force you to follow the instructions, I can only ask the admin to punish you if you dontWhat does that even mean? For the record, Q10 addresses, as far as I can tell, why disputes that don't belong at DRN are closed which is irrelevant to our case. Formal mediation is out of the question since the opposing editros will simply refer to this case, and arbitration deals with user conduct. DevilWearsBrioni ( talk) 13:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Unless the translation is shody, it does appear the sentence about the cham looting and burning is not original research. I have never claimed that they didn't burn villages, neither did I claim that Muslim bands didn't raid villages in Autumn. That's a straw man. My contention is that two or more sources are used to conclude something that neither sources explicitly state, i.e. that Muslim Chams were treated as enemies before/on the onset of war because of the village burnings that occurred during the war (and raids by Muslim bands in Autumn). DevilWearsBrioni ( talk) 14:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
A final note: this may be irrelevant to this case, and not the appropriate page for it, but I have checked the No Original Noticeboard, and I have found that the user DevilWearsBrioni was involved in more such failed SYNTH/NOR cases against other users,. Go ahead. DevilWearsBrioni ( talk) 14:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
but none of these cases turned in favor of DevilWearsBrionwith, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard&oldid=720922969#Trying_to_understand_SYNTH. I even remember you reverting me on the Fustanella article until I showed you the response by Scoobydunk. Some honesty, please? Also, concerning
My job bringing the information (relevant or not, won't be decided by me) to the Administrators and moderators, is done.You should try that at ANI instead, and I'll gladly provide you with the link if you decide to go ahead with it. Don't forget though, at ANI, unlike what you've done here, you need to substantiate these claims. DevilWearsBrioni ( talk)
I am about to close this thread. Nothing is to be gained by further discussion here. User:SilentResident - Either report abuse of the OR process, or let it drop and accept that you have your way on this content dispute unless there is an RFC. User:DevilWearsBrioni - Either file an RFC on whether there is OR, or let it drop. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Moved by volunteer. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Would you consider revisiting your close? The case doesn't really involve a large number of disputants, it only appears that way because User:Alexbrn asked me to include more. The main disputants have been myself, him, and User:Jytdog recently. Almost all the others either came from WP:FTN to offer brief comments, or were SPAs/possible socks trying to eliminate the Hall content. The issue is simple and straightforward, so I think WP:DRN is appropriate. I do not want to do an RfC because editors from FTN (who mostly do good work, and I am not casting aspersions) will vote in a bloc, skewing the result. I've also generally never found the RfC process to be good for anything. Everyone has already been notified of this discussion and offered initial comments. I hope you will consider just going through with the process. If not, I will list it at WP:M. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC) Also, the issue is very simple, concerning whether two lines of text are covered by BLPSPS. The process would definitely be lightweight and quick. -- User:Sammy1339
Is some volunteer willing to take on this persistent case with multiple editors? It looks to me as though it may be more appropriate for formal mediation in view of how many editors it involves and how many times it has been raised here or at other noticeboards. However, is anyone willing to take it? Robert McClenon ( talk) 13:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Can someone please help me address this request, which I closed again today? I don't entirely know what the filing party is saying, mostly recently on my talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=739185168&oldid=739166377 It appears that they have a dispute with one other editor, when there are multiple editors involved. It also appears to me that they are stating their issue as a conduct dispute, although I am having difficulty understanding their statement. If some volunteer does understand what the issue is, and is willing to moderate, they can encourage the filing party to refile. I think that there may be a language barrier that prevents effective moderation. If someone is able to transcend that barrier, I thank them. Can someone take another look and see if I should have opened the case or if it should be reopened? I can't open it myself both because I already have a case and because I can't understand what the filing party is saying. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Hchc2009 has made some interesting conditions on their acceptance of my mediation, including the right of the parties to the mediation to assign research to the mediator. I have never worked mediation in that way, because it has been my view that the parties should present their views of the facts, should be able to state their views clearly to each other and to the moderator, and that the moderator does not arbitrate on matters of fact such as disputed historical facts (the main issue here). We can do one of three things. First, another moderator can take over, either who either will meet the conditions of Hchc2009 or in whom Hchc2009 has confidence. In that case, mediation can proceed. Second, Hchc2009 can withdraw from the mediation and the mediation can continue with less than all of the editors. Third, I can fail the mediation. If I fail the mediation, it can be taken to formal mediation, where the moderator typically has even stricter control, or a Request for Comments can be used. I am willing (either during mediation or after failing mediation) to assist in writing a neutrally worded RFC. What do other volunteers say? What do the parties say? Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I have always stated the 48-hour rule for moderated discussion, and it is necessary in order to be consistent with the principle that most cases are settled in one to two weeks. Discussion here can’t be an off-and-on process. We can’t wait for a long time for editors to take wikibreaks while leaving the case on hold. We have to keep cases here moving. Formal mediation often takes months. All that happens if an editor doesn’t respond in 48 hours is that they don’t contribute to that round of discussion, and the thread moves in, and they can jump in later, but should notice anything that has been said. If no editor comments in 48 hours, a case will be closed without prejudice, meaning that it can be refiled.
We can handle this in at least five ways. First, another moderator can take over. Second, Hchc2009 can remain withdrawn from the mediation, and the mediation can continue. Third, I can close the mediation and send it back to the article talk page. I see that two editors appear to be requesting that. I think that at least The Parson’s Cat requested the mediation, but if other editors choose not to mediate, there is no mediation, and discussion can go back to the talk page. Fourth, formal mediation can be requested. (This is informal mediation.) Fifth, a Request for Comments can be used. I would like to hear the comments of other volunteers. If no one says anything in 24 hours, I will close the case without prejudice and send it back to the article talk page. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
The arbcom electoral commission needs at least one more volunteer, and comments on the existing volunteers would also be welcome. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Electoral Commission for details. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I've been carrying on as coordinator for several months since my last actual term. Real world matters now prevent me from continuing and I'm fully resigning from the position. I may put my name on the list again in the future and will sometimes help with administration here without the coordinator hat, but I'm done for now. I've removed my name from the header (by modifying Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Co-ordinator/Current), though it may take some time to actually work its way onto the main page. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
This project talk page is not the venue for discussion of a content issue.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
02:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
|
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
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.
The R2-45 case was apparently manually filed. It had none of the formatting or fields that are created by the template and then parsed by the maintenance bot. In the past, manually filed cases have caused the bot to break and have had to be manually removed, so I deleted the case. I also advised the filing party that it was stated primarily as a conduct dispute, since he stated that other editors were engaging in article ownership, and that conduct disputes involving areas that are under ArbCom discretionary sanctions are best dealt with at Arbitration Enforcement. R2-45 is a controversial subject area associated with Scientology. (To be sure, a controversial subject area associated with Scientology and a subject area associated with Scientology are synonymous.) Do any other volunteers have any comments? Do we need clearer instructions that cases should not be filed manually? It has only very rarely been necessary to delete manually filed cases because very few cases have been manually filed. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I am retiring from wikipedia. The stress, duplicious nature of people, the refusal of admins to follow the basic concepts they agreed to, and other issues have made me decide to retire.
The following actions need to be taken over:
I am willing to show how to run it (or let someone else run/manage it) but I am done with wikipedia. Hasteur ( talk) 19:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
There has been a long running debate as to whether electronic harassment is real or delusional. The definitive cited source on the subject would seem to be "Mind Games" by the Washington Post: Mind Games which describes both sides of the controversy and leaves it an open question. That is how the Wikipedia article should also be, surely? Yet, there are always editors in abundance who want to negate the controversy and define EH as evidence of a delusion. This has come to a focus recently for me in an attempt to correct this one-sided editing. My edit was quickly reverted and I am outnumbered but sure that they are in the wrong. We have discussed the issue in the Talk page for many months now and still neither side is giving way. The edit in question:[ opinion assumed to be fact] Jed Stuart ( talk) 05:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Jed Stuart has some questions that I will try to answer. I agree that this is a very controversial article; however, every article that we discuss is controversial, because it wouldn't come here it it weren't controversial. He asks about whether there is a procedure for selection of a moderator. The answer is that we generally have a shortage of available moderators, and this noticeboard is used for relatively short discussions. It wouldn't be consistent with our objective to get topics discussed in one to two weeks to first discuss the selection of a moderator. A moderator volunteers to take the case, and the case moves forward. Waiting for three days isn't the way this noticeboard works. Robert McClenon ( talk) 13:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC) If you want a longer, more deliberate discussion, which might be appropriate in this case, I would suggest that you might request formal mediation. Mediation cases sometimes run for a few months. You are welcome to request formal mediation at this point. Robert McClenon ( talk) 13:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC) If you don't want to request formal mediation, or if there isn't agreement to formal mediation, the next step for a content dispute would be a Request for Comments. Disruptive editing can be reported at WP:ANI, but we hope that this issue doesn't have to go to ANI. Robert McClenon ( talk) 13:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Should this be summarily removed? The editor in question not only added themselves improperly, but the information they added appears dubious and at the time I'm writing this they've edited fewer than 10 times, and most of those edits were to the Volunteer page. I don't think they're ready to be a volunteer here anytime soon. DonIago ( talk) 13:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Dontmakemetypepasswordagain: When I checked in I saw the ThePlatypusofDoom's demand to shorten the upgraded text and his closing of the case 4 hours later. You were absolutely right while rejecting the demand: we must not lose our self-respect even if the opinion of prominent lawyers is announced fringe or nonsignificant by Wikipedia law expert or its moderator that made a lot of mistakes. Yagasi ( talk) 04:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
COATRACK? What nonsense. @ Robert McClenon: surely you do realize that "policy opinions" are unconstructive if they're completely unfounded?
Robert McClenon closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Southern_Levant, because "also pending at WP:ANI", referring to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Username_in_section_heading.2FPersonal_Attacks, apparently. The issue at WP:ANI is about a behavioral issue, and was opened at least a day after this discussion. I don't think that there is any substantial reason to close the attempt at dispute resolution here because of it. I call upon Robert McClenon to review his closure. Debresser ( talk) 00:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
The bot seems to have stopped working, because it isn't marking cases that were closed as premature or badly filed as closed. Has someone taken over management of the bot? User:TransporterMan, User:Hasteur - What is the status of the bot? Has someone taken it over? Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Is anyone willing to moderate, or should this case be closed for lack of a moderator? It is marginal as far as the criteria for acceptance because of the comments that can be read as religious polemics. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Robert McClenon Can I know why this case was closed? Hammad.511234 ( talk) 20:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Please do, because this is injustice. Hammad.511234 ( talk) 20:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the administrators did not help, and just dismissed the case, that's why I came here. Hammad.511234 ( talk) 02:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
No, administrators, on another page. A demanding tone...? Well, I'm sorry if it came out like that. And I'm actually Canadian, lol. I known the case has been reopened, and I'm happy something's being done. Thank you anyways. Hammad.511234 ( talk) 23:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Many participants here are great with dealing with conflicts, must decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:
You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
The present process seems to include a "Dispute overview" by the reporting editor, then from other editors a "Summary of dispute", followed by a "First statements by editors" by all. In many cases the first statement can be the same as the dispute overview or the summary of dispute. Therefore I propose to make the first statements step optional. I think that asking for a "first" statement, which is not a first is bureaucratic and even a bit confusing. The process will benefit from streamlining it. I definitely do not think that a "First statement" should be a prerequisite for continuation of the mediation process. Debresser ( talk) 13:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request#Unable to create request. Cross posting here because that talk page might not be watchlisted. Felsic2 ( talk) 19:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I just posted a test case and it posted correctly. Thanks to Enterprisey for the fix. Felsic2 should try reposting his request. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 07:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC) (Current DRN Coordinator)
Two threads need moderators. Volunteers are asked to open the two threads that are waiting for moderators. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
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.
When trying to sort out a content issue, an editor tries to stifle Talk Page discussion by immediately archiving the discussion, saying that the "discussion is closed". Is this edit warring? Is there a suitable way to deal with this tactic? Santamoly ( talk) 20:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Guy Macon wrote, on the project page: 'DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors. If anyone has a problem with this, let me know and we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer.' I mostly agree, but disagree only in the idea that any dispute resolution volunteer should even consider accepting a case in which one of the editors wants to discuss other editors. I would like to emphasize that, in my opinion, no editor should ever be focusing on the behavior of other editors. Guy is right. If there really is a content dispute and editors are willing to discuss content, talking about content may make any conduct issues, such as stubbornness, go away. If there really is a dispute that is primarily about conduct, this isn't the right place, and isn't even the least wrong place. The least wrong place to discuss editor conduct is either WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
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.
Was this case handled appropriately: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Expulsion_of_Cham_Albanians
It was essentially opened and then closed within a few hours. I would have preferred if the discussion went on so I could clarify a few points. Also, it seems, at least to me, that the volunteer is under the impression that he/she is an arbitrator.
Could it be reopened? DevilWearsBrioni ( talk) 23:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by DevilWearsBrioni ( talk • contribs) 14:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Although Muslim Chams were not eager to fight on the side of the Ottoman army during the Balkan Wars, they were nevertheless treated by the Greek army as de facto enemies, while local Christians were enlisted in the Greek forces. For example, a few days after the occupation of the area of Chamouria by the Greek Army, 72 or 78 Muslim notables were executed by a Greek irregular military unit in the religiously mixed town of Paramythia, evidently accused of being traitors.31 During the Balkan War, in late 1912, when Muslim Chams were fighting on the side of the Ottoman Army, and Christian Chams on that of the Greek Army, several local conflicts emerged
(UTC)
as I mentioned i cannot force you to follow the instructions, I can only ask the admin to punish you if you dontWhat does that even mean? For the record, Q10 addresses, as far as I can tell, why disputes that don't belong at DRN are closed which is irrelevant to our case. Formal mediation is out of the question since the opposing editros will simply refer to this case, and arbitration deals with user conduct. DevilWearsBrioni ( talk) 13:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Unless the translation is shody, it does appear the sentence about the cham looting and burning is not original research. I have never claimed that they didn't burn villages, neither did I claim that Muslim bands didn't raid villages in Autumn. That's a straw man. My contention is that two or more sources are used to conclude something that neither sources explicitly state, i.e. that Muslim Chams were treated as enemies before/on the onset of war because of the village burnings that occurred during the war (and raids by Muslim bands in Autumn). DevilWearsBrioni ( talk) 14:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
A final note: this may be irrelevant to this case, and not the appropriate page for it, but I have checked the No Original Noticeboard, and I have found that the user DevilWearsBrioni was involved in more such failed SYNTH/NOR cases against other users,. Go ahead. DevilWearsBrioni ( talk) 14:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
but none of these cases turned in favor of DevilWearsBrionwith, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard&oldid=720922969#Trying_to_understand_SYNTH. I even remember you reverting me on the Fustanella article until I showed you the response by Scoobydunk. Some honesty, please? Also, concerning
My job bringing the information (relevant or not, won't be decided by me) to the Administrators and moderators, is done.You should try that at ANI instead, and I'll gladly provide you with the link if you decide to go ahead with it. Don't forget though, at ANI, unlike what you've done here, you need to substantiate these claims. DevilWearsBrioni ( talk)
I am about to close this thread. Nothing is to be gained by further discussion here. User:SilentResident - Either report abuse of the OR process, or let it drop and accept that you have your way on this content dispute unless there is an RFC. User:DevilWearsBrioni - Either file an RFC on whether there is OR, or let it drop. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Moved by volunteer. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Would you consider revisiting your close? The case doesn't really involve a large number of disputants, it only appears that way because User:Alexbrn asked me to include more. The main disputants have been myself, him, and User:Jytdog recently. Almost all the others either came from WP:FTN to offer brief comments, or were SPAs/possible socks trying to eliminate the Hall content. The issue is simple and straightforward, so I think WP:DRN is appropriate. I do not want to do an RfC because editors from FTN (who mostly do good work, and I am not casting aspersions) will vote in a bloc, skewing the result. I've also generally never found the RfC process to be good for anything. Everyone has already been notified of this discussion and offered initial comments. I hope you will consider just going through with the process. If not, I will list it at WP:M. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC) Also, the issue is very simple, concerning whether two lines of text are covered by BLPSPS. The process would definitely be lightweight and quick. -- User:Sammy1339
Is some volunteer willing to take on this persistent case with multiple editors? It looks to me as though it may be more appropriate for formal mediation in view of how many editors it involves and how many times it has been raised here or at other noticeboards. However, is anyone willing to take it? Robert McClenon ( talk) 13:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Can someone please help me address this request, which I closed again today? I don't entirely know what the filing party is saying, mostly recently on my talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=739185168&oldid=739166377 It appears that they have a dispute with one other editor, when there are multiple editors involved. It also appears to me that they are stating their issue as a conduct dispute, although I am having difficulty understanding their statement. If some volunteer does understand what the issue is, and is willing to moderate, they can encourage the filing party to refile. I think that there may be a language barrier that prevents effective moderation. If someone is able to transcend that barrier, I thank them. Can someone take another look and see if I should have opened the case or if it should be reopened? I can't open it myself both because I already have a case and because I can't understand what the filing party is saying. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Hchc2009 has made some interesting conditions on their acceptance of my mediation, including the right of the parties to the mediation to assign research to the mediator. I have never worked mediation in that way, because it has been my view that the parties should present their views of the facts, should be able to state their views clearly to each other and to the moderator, and that the moderator does not arbitrate on matters of fact such as disputed historical facts (the main issue here). We can do one of three things. First, another moderator can take over, either who either will meet the conditions of Hchc2009 or in whom Hchc2009 has confidence. In that case, mediation can proceed. Second, Hchc2009 can withdraw from the mediation and the mediation can continue with less than all of the editors. Third, I can fail the mediation. If I fail the mediation, it can be taken to formal mediation, where the moderator typically has even stricter control, or a Request for Comments can be used. I am willing (either during mediation or after failing mediation) to assist in writing a neutrally worded RFC. What do other volunteers say? What do the parties say? Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I have always stated the 48-hour rule for moderated discussion, and it is necessary in order to be consistent with the principle that most cases are settled in one to two weeks. Discussion here can’t be an off-and-on process. We can’t wait for a long time for editors to take wikibreaks while leaving the case on hold. We have to keep cases here moving. Formal mediation often takes months. All that happens if an editor doesn’t respond in 48 hours is that they don’t contribute to that round of discussion, and the thread moves in, and they can jump in later, but should notice anything that has been said. If no editor comments in 48 hours, a case will be closed without prejudice, meaning that it can be refiled.
We can handle this in at least five ways. First, another moderator can take over. Second, Hchc2009 can remain withdrawn from the mediation, and the mediation can continue. Third, I can close the mediation and send it back to the article talk page. I see that two editors appear to be requesting that. I think that at least The Parson’s Cat requested the mediation, but if other editors choose not to mediate, there is no mediation, and discussion can go back to the talk page. Fourth, formal mediation can be requested. (This is informal mediation.) Fifth, a Request for Comments can be used. I would like to hear the comments of other volunteers. If no one says anything in 24 hours, I will close the case without prejudice and send it back to the article talk page. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
The arbcom electoral commission needs at least one more volunteer, and comments on the existing volunteers would also be welcome. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Electoral Commission for details. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I've been carrying on as coordinator for several months since my last actual term. Real world matters now prevent me from continuing and I'm fully resigning from the position. I may put my name on the list again in the future and will sometimes help with administration here without the coordinator hat, but I'm done for now. I've removed my name from the header (by modifying Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Co-ordinator/Current), though it may take some time to actually work its way onto the main page. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
This project talk page is not the venue for discussion of a content issue.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
02:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
|