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.

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:

1. DRN Clerk bot running and maintenance

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)

I've emailed Hasteur with an procedural question. @ Mr. Stradivarius: You're the only person who I know for certain probably has the skills to take this over at this point. Could you perhaps take it on until we find a regular replacement? Any other candidates please apply here. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't have much experience with bots on Wikipedia. Does Hasteur host it or just maintain it? KSF T ^C 21:59, 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)

Are you saying that you wish to request moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard about the article content? If so, you may file a request at the project page. There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. At the same time, dispute resolution is voluntary, so that the other editor or editors will need to agree to discussion. You may file a request and notify the other parties. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I did as directed, started the dispute resolution process, and notified the main other party in the dispute on the articles Talk page. I have returned to the dispute after 3 days and find that a moderator has volunteered, there has been brief discussion only along the lines of the other side of the dispute and the dispute closed, and it is difficult for me to read it even. This is a very controversial article and any dispute needs to proceed slowly and carefully, I would suggest. To me that means that both parties initially agreeing on the moderator. I don't agree on the one that very quickly showed up. Is there a list of moderators available. It seems like it might be a difficult thing to achieve, agreement on a moderator. But without that is their any point? Jed Stuart ( talk) 06:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Jed, I have quoted you and replied to this on your talk page, as my response doesn't address the question you asked here. However, I would advise you to read that, first. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Explanation of Procedures

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)

Thanks for the clarification and guidance. I will go to the formal mediation process if I can't get the other side in this to stop misrepresenting my position and threatening me with sanctions to gag me. Jed Stuart ( talk) 02:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I followed through the diatribe reading as much as possible, and I think User:Jed Stuart is correct in that "the article should be put in terms of it being an open question", as you wrote on the Talk Page, which I can't edit because I just registered my account and 4 days need to pass so that I can partecipate (it is semi-protected). I just wanted to let you know that there's this new politician believing in the Targeted Individuals view. She set up this campaign website full of information on Electronic harassment. Particularly, I cared to make you aware that she has a page dedicated to videos on that website, and on the very first video, the Chairman of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to which Targeted Individuals appealed in recent years, comments on CNN that "We can't know whether this things are still happening today", which confirms yours and the Washington Post article thesis. This looks more than a reliable source. Why not consider Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard by the way? Good Luck! BroughtToYouByMolly ( talk) 17:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the lead, and I will present my case to the NPOV noticeboard. Jed Stuart ( talk) 06:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you appreciate the idea. After all I did read on the Talk page and the article page including their history, the sources picked to represent the topic as well as those sources left out, I think the article should be re-written somehow on the line of this scheme:

Electronic harassment is a conspiracy theory with different interpretations.... etc.

Claims of Electronic harassment

All that Targeted Individuals claim to be experiencing plus their view such as continous mentions of Mkultra, Cointelpro, patents of technologies capable of producing the "degrading" health effects claimed

Leading Psychiatric view

Decribe the psychiatrists' view about internet communities about mind-control, which have been studied and the conclusion is that the accounts involved in those communities show the same traits of delusions and mental illnesses..

Governments Commissioned Studies

Chairman of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues stating on CNN "We don't know whether this things are still happening today" after targeted individuals appealed to her Presidential commission. Also European Parliament commissioned study "Crowd Control Technologies (An appraisal of technologies for political control)" reporting "research into individual mind control", as well as mentioning past reasearch into mind control programs, and recent alleged significant breakthroughs revealed by Begich and Roderick "in the ability of military high frequency electromagnetic technologies to manipulate human behaviour".

Political view

Dennis Kucinich, Jim Guest, Massie Munroe, Dr.Nick Begich, Vladimir Putin, etc..

Minority/Non-mainstream views

Dr. Carole Smith, Dr. John Hall, Dr. Rauni Kilde, ex US Intelligence agents Julianne Mckinney and Dr. Robert Duncan, etc

Good Luck again! BroughtToYouByMolly ( talk) 12:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable structure. It would be a major battle to get those minority views into the picture though. They are well respected people nevertheless. Getting them interviewed by officially sanctioned mainstream media might be easier. Except for Rauni Kilde who is now dead. Jed Stuart ( talk) 04:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The point with the last section titled "Minority/Non.mainstream views" is to give comprehensiveness to the article, without infringing any policy or guideline, since they would be rightfully given credit in terms of, indeed, minority/non-mainstream views. I did read countless articles reporting non-mainstream views which still respect the WP:FRINGE guideline, because the guideline is about reporting also minority views yet establishing the relation between majority and minority viewpoint, it is not about exclude the minority views. Thus I believe it would be no different in this case in my opinion. Those doctors are respectable sources.. they didn't just come out of a crowd at a baseball stadium shouting their views. Instead they researched and studied the issue as either physicians or ex US Intelligence agents. But I understand consensus is very difficult when it comes to shove anything that gives even the slightest mention of credibility to the claims of EH. BroughtToYouByMolly ( talk) 09:14, 1 June 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)

 Done Looks like this was addressed by another editor. As I agree with the change, I guess there's nothing to see here. DonIago ( talk) 15:45, 7 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)

As the moderator noted in closing, the next step in dispute resolution is recommended to be formal mediation. Are the editors willing to go to formal mediation? This doesn't appear to be a conduct dispute. Due to the complexity of the issues, it probably is not well suited to being resolved by a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@ Robert McClenon: As a general matter I'm willing, but as a practical matter I wonder what there is left to discuss? As we left things, I had demanded somebody come forward with any policy language whatsoever which would require an already extremely brief and carefully qualified summary of a POV—a good portion of which was already devoted to giving a rebuttal to the view—to be shortened even further. After nearly 9 months and no small amount of begging to be given a policy citation to work with, that doesn't seem a lot to ask. The response, essentially, was No, we don't want to do that, discussion closed. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain ( talk) 13:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Can the issue be stated clearly and concisely? If the issue can be stated concisely, an alternate next step would be a Request for Comments. Requests for Comments work very well if the issue can be stated concisely. (If not, not.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The issue was already discussed on NPOV noticeboard. I do not think Request for Comments will add something new to the responses received on the noticeboard.

The primary issue at the formal mediation should be as follows: Is the text proposed at the end of the informal mediation (based on the 4 balanced reliable sources) appropriate to include within the context of Wikipedia policies. Additional issue at the mediation may be as follows: Would the removing of the proposed text cause double standard approach to the article's content? Yagasi ( talk) 20:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@ Robert McClenon: Thanks for the advice. In my personal opinion, RFCs bring certain problems of systemic bias, as I believe was already demonstrated at the NPOV noticeboard. Ask any question of the form "should unpopular view X be included in article Y?" and you're liable to get dozens of unsupported "No" answers, leaving you little choice but to spend most of your time discussing the as-yet unproven theory that "consensus is not a vote"—again, just my opinion. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain ( talk) 13:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The attempt to remove the disputed legal opinion makes the English Wikipedia community somewhat more Orwellian. Is this not a cause for concern to the 47,395,824 English Wikipedia users, including the Mediation Committee members? Yagasi ( talk) 11:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I will comment briefly. I did not take part in the case. However, the issue is not whether to remove a legal opinion from existence, but whether a particular legal opinion was an appropriate part of a particular article. My own personal opinion was, first, it is a matter of established fact that the Iranian government has made genocidal statements against Israel, but, second, that isn't directly relevant to whether to include that in an article on a a treaty to which the Iranian government is party (and, indeed, which is intended, wisely or unwisely, to mitigate the danger that the Iranian government poses to Israel), and, third, attempting to include the genocide issue in an article about the nuclear treaty would have violated the guideline against coatracking. That is my opinion. I will further note that the previous request for formal mediation was declined because discussion was again in progress here, and that a new request for formal mediation can again be made, if the parties agree. I will also comment that, in my opinion, invoking Orwell in a 1984-like context, of implying that someone is trying to remove the dispute legal opinion from existence (rather than from an article) goes on all fours with Godwin's Law. Rational discussion has broken down here. Either try an RFC or request formal mediation. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The article criticizes the JCPOA for excluding provisions against terrorism sponsorship and illegal ballistic missile testing. But criticism or even mentioning genocide or incitement to genocide is taboo. Or, as Beres pointed it out in one of the removed sources, there is an "expressed unwillingness to abide by the 1948 Genocide Convention". If somebody requests formal mediation I will participate. But until then I will not rethink my above opinion. Yagasi ( talk) 09:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

COATRACK? What nonsense. @ Robert McClenon: surely you do realize that "policy opinions" are unconstructive if they're completely unfounded?

The connection between the deal and the failure to include provisions against genocide has been stated by reliable sources. Only ignoring this may lead to the completely wrong COATRACK argument. Yagasi ( talk) 06:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

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)

It is true that the issue at WP:ANI was behavioral; only behavioral issues should be filed at WP:ANI. It does not matter which thread was filed first. We do not try to resolve content issues and conduct issues in parallel, and the filing of a conduct dispute causes a content dispute here to be closed. (This isn't a new rule. We do not try to resolve a content issue while a conduct issue is in progress.) The content resolution request can be refiled as long as there is no current conduct dispute if the parties agree to resolution here (since dispute resolution here is voluntary). Since there isn't currently a thread at ANI about Southern Levant, a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. Instead, you could simply have left the discussion open. Now you want a new request to be filed, even though nothing has changed. So much bureaucracy... Debresser ( talk) 12:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Something did change. There was a substantive reason to close the first thread here, and so substantive action to re-open the thread was in order and has been done. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@ Robert McClenon:Re the seventh statement. It was my understanding that the paragraphs provided were for the Academic Usage section which I had folded into the Lead and the other editor wanted reinstated. The paragraph I provided was intended as a version of the Academic Usage section, which I agreed should be reinstated. I believe Oncenawhile was writing his version of the same thing. I'm happy to write a version of the lead article for the RFC, but don't consider that to be the issue. Drsmoo ( talk) 23:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

At this point, the issue is the wording of the lede paragraph. However, if you want to open another issue, go ahead. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It's fine that it's the lead paragraph. I believe what Oncenawhile and I both submitted as drafts were for the Academic Usage section. If we're talking about the lead then i will re write for the RFC. Drsmoo ( talk) 06:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon I was also writing for the main body (the Terminology section). Since all the sources will be in the main body, but may not be in the lede, if we just focus on resolving the lede we will miss the key resolution of how to properly summarize the sources. Would you be open to us submitting both our proposal for main body and our proposal for the relevant lede sentence(s)? Oncenawhile ( talk) 07:26, 13 June 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)

It appears to be working now, unless you're seeing something I'm not. Hasteur appears to really be gone, though I hold out some hope that he may yet change his mind after some time away. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Wish I could help, but I'm Bot clueless. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 19:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it is working now. However, we need someone who can at least restart it when it stops, including stopping when badly filed cases confuse it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I have almost no experience with bots on Wikipedia, but I could try to do that. What kind of interface is used to maintain bots? KSF T ^C 23:59, 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)

I didn't close the case. However, sometimes the statements made in closing of cases are self-explanatory. No moderator volunteered to take the case after ten days. I will add that one of the reasons why no moderator volunteered to take the case may be that some volunteer moderators don't want to take a case that isn't about religion but in which religion has been raised as an issue, making neutrality even more difficult than it otherwise would be. As the coordinator noted in closing, a Request for Comments is a reasonable next step. (I would suggest that editors avoid complicating the issue by religious allusions, but other editors are free to disregard that comment.) Sometimes closing statements are self-explanatory; no moderator volunteered to take the case. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Everyone who works at DRN is, like all of Wikipedia, a volunteer and no one has to do more than they care to do. Once a case has been listed for a few days and no one has chosen to take it, it's extremely unlikely that anyone will do so and that's especially true after the lack of a volunteer has been raised on this talk page and been given a couple of days. It's best to close it so that the participants can move on to some other form of dispute resolution if they care to do so. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 07:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

If it isn't too late, I would be willing to take the case. KSF T ^C 14:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Please do, because this is injustice. Hammad.511234 ( talk) 20:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Hammad.511234 You aren't helping by using words like "injustice". User:KSFT - Please mark the case as open before it is archived if you are willing to moderate. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:51, 18 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)

What administrators? Maybe you mean moderators? Please take another look at the project page and you will see that the case has been opened. Also, please try to keep your tone of discourse collaborative. It is primarily the job of the moderator to keep the tone collaborative, but you are coming across to at least one experienced moderator as having a very demanding tone. (Maybe what seems polite in Indian English comes across as rude in American English. Remember that not all participants have the same linguistic background as you do.) But check and see that the case has been opened. Follow the ground rules set by the moderator, which will almost certainly include to be civil and concise and to comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:15, 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:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

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)

"First statement by editors" isn't a fixed part of the protocol. Some moderators ask for a first statement by editors. Some moderators are more free-form. I did ask for a first statement by each editor. User:Debresser provided one, that is consistent with their summary, and that is all right. No one else has so far said anything. I then asked for second statements by editors, and am assuming that Debresser won't say anything more, and isn't required to do so. This is really a matter of how moderators structure the discussion, and not of the protocol. Do other moderators or volunteers want to comment? Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

In that specific case I understood that "Dispute overview" was to be something short and neutral (to the best of my ability). I was therefore happy to receive the chance to provide a statement where I could explain my take on the issue. Nableezy seems to have already done that in his "Summary of dispute", so for him this step would probably be unnecessary. I think that the instructions could be improved by skipping the summary phase for other editors, and go straight from the overview by the reporting editor to first statements for all editors. 14:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC) Debresser ( talk)

There is a space for summaries by all editors to give all of the editors a chance to say something before the moderator opens the case. Different moderators have different styles. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:26, 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)

The script that is being used to create new requests is new. Who does the maintenance on it? I am getting the same problem (wheel cycles for a long time) as the reporter. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I was about to try to create an entry manually, but there's a warning about not doing anything until a volunteer has posted the original request. Felsic2 ( talk) 19:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Who is maintaining the script? Creating an entry manually sometimes causes bad things to happen. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The fix has been published; everything should be working now. Enterprisey ( talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 02:31, 22 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)

It worked. Thanks all. Felsic2 ( talk) 14:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. It worked. Now waiting for responses from the other editors. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, that didn't work out as I'd hoped. But thanks for your time and effort. Felsic2 ( talk) 19:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. As a regular volunteer here, I would almost always prefer to see cases resolved at this noticeboard, and am disappointed when editors don't want to discuss here, but discussion here, like most forms of content resolution, is voluntary. The next step may be formal mediation, but that is not much more likely to work than did informal mediation here, or a Request for Comments, or arbitration enforcement. (If you don't know what arbitration enforcement is, that is probably good, because you probably don't really want to know.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I put in a filing at WP:AE, where I mentioned this case and your name. Once that's settled I guess I'll request formal mediation. Felsic2 ( talk) 20:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

I just opened one of them. It is nice to get back to it after taking a break for a while. I was getting a bit burned out but now am refreshed and eager to help them resolve the dispute. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 08:51, 3 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)

I would say that this is something that most of the volunteers here would agree with to a greater or lesser extent, Robert McClenon. I know that this was one reason that I liked to both watch cases unfold here, and to rarely take on a case when needed or in an area of interest (despite my drop off the radar). Hopefully more of the editors that bring their cases here read that before trying to use DRN and then being redirected, though that can be helpful as well. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 14:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

We are saying the same thing. Some volunteers say it more strongly than others. My only issue with what User:Guy Macon said was that implied that if an editor wants to talk about other editors, there might be volunteer who will allow it. There might, but we shouldn't encourage volunteers to permit discussion of the behavior of other editors. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Really good comments. I think I will take the "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" language out of my standard opening. Maybe I should add "If anyone has a problem with me as a mediator, let me know and we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer" at the end? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:30, 6 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

On the one hand, the request as filed is closed and I will leave it closed. On the other hand, it was closed without prejudice and can be refiled at DRN with a shorter list of editors. I will ask: Is the issue a simple and straightforward one where compromise is possible? As stated, it doesn't appear to be an issue that permits compromise, in which case it isn't clear to me how DRN will help (or, for that matter, how formal mediation will help). The primary purpose of DRN is to facilitate compromise. As stated, there appears to be a yes/no question, and that isn't likely to be settled at DRN. Some editors file at DRN because they expect that the moderator will act as an arbitrator, but that isn't the proper role of a DRN moderator. The case can be refiled, without the long list of editors, but I will ask User:Sammy1339 whether this really is a question where compromise is being sought. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not. Can you recommend any alternative to RfC then? That takes over a month and produces endless confusion, and often no result. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 17:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

If the issue isn't one where compromise is sought, then neither DRN nor mediation is the right place for you. In the specific case, which has to do with sources, you could try the reliable source noticeboard. I am reasonably sure that it is non-binding, like the fringe theory noticeboard. RFC, when it results in consensus, is intended to be binding. It is true that it sometimes results in no consensus, in which case you are where you started. It is also true that sometimes an editor doesn't accept the consensus and edits against consensus, which is a form of disruptive editing that is difficult to deal with. If you want a quick decisive answer, Wikipedia doesn't have that. I welcome the comments of other volunteers, but those are my comments. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

See Q15 in the FAQ. DRN is not for requests for a yes/no ruling, but, as the FAQ states, for mediation, facilitated discussion. If there isn't room for compromise, some approach other than mediation may be in order. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

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)

As noted previously, the original talk page discussion on the article concerned llasted only a few hours; much of the world would have slept through it. The guidance is clear that this sort of process should not begin until there has been substantive dialogue on those pages. A fourth alternative would be to return the debate it to the article page and let normal debate ensue, without making demands on editors such as myself to "check these pages very 48 hours" etc. - which isn't a very productive way to start off a mediation discussion. Hchc2009 ( talk) 23:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I will also comment that User:Hchc2009, whom I added manually to the list of editors, has removed themselves from the list of editors. I am a little puzzled as to how someone who has deleted themselves from the list of editors wants to set conditions on how the case is mediated, but that is what it is. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

If you're prepared not to bother me again, Robert, then let's leave it at that. I didn't ask you to add me to your list in the first place, nor to demand that I check these pages every 48 hours,, etc,, etc. Hchc2009 ( talk) 23:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll point out that I too felt that too little discussion took place on the talk page. And I also felt that "Every editor must check on the status of this case at least every 48 hours and answer all questions at least every 48 hours." for what is supposed to be a voluntary process (or at least I assume so) was really very demanding. The way it was phrased quite put me off on the whole process, honestly. I felt like my effort to go along with this process (attempting to show my good faith in the other editor) was being demanded and that I was being talked down to. If this is supposed to be voluntary ... it sure didn't feel like it after that statement. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Going Forward

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)