User talk:Rschen7754/Archive 19

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.

I have instigated an SPI against User:Cap-Saint-Martin. He has defended himself by asserting that I am "making trouble and wasting people's time", backing this up by your statement "This editor has been systemically doing things across all of UKRD, one of the reasons why the project has been far behind the United States and Canada projects. I think at some point a more large-scale discussion needs to be held, and if that fails, a WP:RFC/U". I have responded with "User:Rschen7754's statement was probably the result of a mis-understanding and to save cluttering up this page, I shall invite him to explain himself on his own talk page."

I light of the way in which Cap-Saint-Martin has used (or misused) your statement, will you please explain exactly what you meant it. If Cap-Saint-Martin is out of order in his interpretation, please say so on the SPI page, but if this is likely to be an involved discussion, it is best to have that discussion here. Martinvl (talk) 08:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Well yes, your behavior is being disruptive by continually agitating for a certain measurement system and template system, and basically flat out

WT:RJL. That is one of the reasons why the UK roads project has been far behind the United States and Canada projects. --Rschen7754

08:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you willing to cite any other reasons so that we can put your statement into perspective? Martinvl (talk) 09:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no perspective. Your behavior is disruptive and needs to stop. --Rschen7754 09:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

For the second time, please cite other "reasons why the project has been far behind the United States and Canada projects", or are you placing the blame entirely on me? Martinvl (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Well no, it's not entirely you, that is true. But certain editors need to actually work on the UK roads articles and making them better rather than going around the site bashing the U.S. roads projects and their editors every chance they get, even in completely unrelated situations. Some editors need to stop insisting on including coordinates for every single darn junction, especially as that makes no sense for linear objects and has been superseded by KML anyway. Certain editors need to stop edit warring and arguing about metric versus imperial and just include both measurements (and frankly I could care less about which comes first). Some editors need to stop insisting on using SPS and use high quality sources instead, a lesson that the U.S. roads project has learned over and over again. Some editors need to stop insisting on outdated junction list standards when they still fail the site-wide MOS. And finally, the UK roads project needs to learn how to take advice from a roads project that has been very successful at GA/FA (we have 48 FAs and 800+ GAs) without being so flipping hardheaded and stubborn without insisting on their own "innovations" that take the project back to 2005. Our methods have worked in Ontario, Croatia, and Western Australia. It's time to swallow your (collective) pride, stop acting like you OWN the articles, and actually work to benefit the encyclopedia rather than rejecting widely accepted standards despite all logical and reasonable arguments just because "The Americans™ proposed them, so we cannot use them." Whether from this point on you personally choose to fall into any of these categories is entirely your choice. --Rschen7754 18:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying. In the United Kingdom it is notoriously difficult to get information from government departments - that is what public libraries are for. The result that unofficial publications abound, some good and some not so good.

I looked through one of the archives of a British roads website dated 2008 which appears to have been at the time that Wikipedia started tightening up on the need for information to be properly cited and judging by the comments on that website, it appears that certain individuals in the Roads Group became too enthusiastic about proper citations too quickly with the result that many other editors abandoned the project completely. As a result there are very few active UK roads editors today. I was not around at the time so I don’t know who was to blame.

Does this put things into perspective? Martinvl (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

We have faced similar pushback in the U.S. but it has not been so extreme. However, the thing is that the sourcing requirements are largely out of our (the road project editors') control - this is a Wikipedia-wide standard. --Rschen7754 21:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The sourcing requirement might be out of the control of the road project editors, but on reading that website archive it appears that it was handled in a heavy-handed manner. As regards the road junction lists, I think that you need to be aware that things are not the same between the US and the UK - think of all the motoring terms that are different - pavement vs sidewalk, carriageway vs pavement, bonnet vs hood, gear lever vs gear shift to mention but a few. The handling of road junction lists shoudl be seen in the same light a variation in

WP:ENGVAR rather than a deviation from standards. Martinvl (talk

) 22:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

That's patently absurd. We don't have different standards for UK and US biography articles. I've been to the UK and I see no reason why we cannot have an entirely universal standard. Roads aren't that different worldwide, you know. Why are United Kingdom Roads® so special? --Rschen7754 22:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been asked by Rschen7754 to state my opinion on this, and would like to make the following points:

• Speaking as a broad generalisation, those in the US tend to have a more positive outlook on life than in the UK, where "have a nice day?" is treated as a mild patronising insult. We celebrate
  US Route 66 in song and U.S. Route 50 in Nevada is a modern cultural icon, while over the other side of the pond, post Twyford Down
  , the only road items that get on the national news are protests. I think it's important to recognise that culture clash exists, particularly when thinking how somebody else would read your post.
• As Martinvl notes, there has been, in the past, a very strong anti-Wikipedia bias in some other parts of the internet, which has broadly pollinated down to other users, who are then disinclined to edit here and write about stuff elsewhere - compare A82 on SABRE with A82 on here. I wouldn't mind if the same people wrote both, but I can't see evidence they do - so there's just duplication of work. I have to say that the endless discussions on marker posts, metrication and counties do not serve to dispel this bias, which is why I make a deliberate point these days to ignore them.
• Martinvl states "In the United Kingdom it is notoriously difficult to get information from government departments." Balderdash. To paraphrase
  National Archives requires a simple 10 minute registration to check you're competent enough to pick up 100 year old papers without destroying them. I would universally recommend anyone with the time and inclination to visit TNA and check out File MT39/191
  and see just how many high quality free images are accessible to us. All you've got to do is find them! It's worth pointing out that the SABRE forums are frequented by professional highway engineers and contractors, and can generally find "a man who knows" to source some information, although getting that in a format that's reliable and verifiable is slightly trickier.
• In my view, Rschen7754, you don't come across as well as you could explaining things. From my experience, explaining Wikipedia policies and processes to newcomers is extremely hard and a challenging task, as can be easily seen by observing our
  featured article (FA) is, what's basically required to write one, and why you'd want to do it. You claim to have written a substantial amount of GAs - why have you not taken (to pick a random example) A82 road or A303 road
  to GA? For someone with your claimed experience, it should not be hard to do so. I think had you written a few GAs on the project yourself, you'd be in a lot stronger standing. I think that recognising there's a communication problem is important to get people on your side, otherwise we'll probably all be here this time next year saying the same things.
• Another point on communication - you need to follow through with complaints. Rschen7754, you complained that
  the reassessment process
  . In my view, I agree that the article is not FA quality, but for far more substantial reasons than you have stated. Has this article been taken to FAR yet? If not, why not?

I don't explain how to write a GA or FA because nobody from the UK roads project has asked me. They've been too busy fighting other stuff. I'll be honest - in the U.S. we spent a lot of time fighting over stuff too, but in 2008 we snapped out of it, built a system, and got to work.

It is standard to give at least two weeks warning before taking an article to FAR. I plan to take it there Tuesday. --Rschen7754 09:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but your brief reply leads me to conclude you aren't really taking in what I'm saying, so I'll leave this conversation and wish you the best. Happy editing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe you just had no answer for my matter-of-fact statements. Besides, a lot of it was not addressed to me anyway. Furthermore we all work on what we want to work on, but that doesn't mean that we are barred from giving input. I've reviewed untold numbers of Michigan road articles, for example, but I have never even been to that state, let alone have ever written a sentence on a Michigan road. Imzadi1979 still respects my input. Ditto for Canada, Croatia, and Western Australia. To be blunt, why is UK Roads any different? --Rschen7754 10:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do not share that view. A good manager leads by example. You have regularly complained about the quality of articles on this project whilst making no obvious concerted effort to improve them yourself. I personally consider that to be disruptive and unacceptable. This, I believe, is also the reason that Malleus tells people to go and <insert profanity here> themselves on a semi-regular basis. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, we've tried to help you, and all you figuratively do is tell us "to go and <insert profanity here> themselves on a semi-regular basis". --Rschen7754 17:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I asked for assistance taking a UK road article to GA not long ago, and was met with silence. I have told you two publicly accessible archives where you may find content to improve articles, and you have ignored them. You are a disruptive and corrosive influence on this project, and if this continues, I may regretfully have to go to ANI to request you are topic banned from the project so editors may improve articles in peace. Have a nice day. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the gratuitous personal attack, and good luck with attempting to get me topic banned. --Rschen7754 22:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't really want you or anyone get you topic banned at all, and the above is my opinion that has been observed from your behaviour. It is a criticism of what you have done, not what you are. I had a brief look through California State Route 75, and it looks good. It has a comprehensive history, reads well, and is properly sourced to official documents. Why can't you write an article of this quality on British roads? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

So what, I have to write a UK road article or I get topic banned, is that it!? Look, this business about "oh, you have to write an article on a UK road or we won't trust your opinion" is pure garbage. If that were the case, you would need to topic ban all the reviewers at GAN, ACR, and FAC. --Rschen7754 18:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

If you don't know the subject, I don't think you can GA review things. You won't know whether the print sources are correct, whether the article is broad in coverage and whether better sources are there. That's why I can't clear down the GA pile often because I don't have enough subject knowledge. This is vitally important, and when I GA reviewed an article for SilkTork, I was commended on that, and he was not happy that GA reviewers didn't pay attention to sources and factual correctness in the past. Remember, you have been hauled up to Arbcom, admonished and blocked for edit warring, and a pile of your project's GA reviews were brought up for criticism last year for not being up to scratch. So if you want to criticise a project, don't just use abbreviated jargon (remember

Father Jack Hackett to outsiders who don't understand strange acronyms). You've never commented on the pros and cons of TNA and Hansard sources, which suggests to me you're not in a good place to criticise about a project. Sources and information are IMHO the most important thing about an article - the average reader doesn't care about MOS adherence too much, but they will if something factually incorrect is presented to them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

20:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

When I tried to introduce the RJLUK set of templates which were broadly in line with the layout agreed for UK RJLs, User:Imzadi1979 promptly [deleted the example] in WP:RJL which detailed the agreement. This is hardly helping us, unless by "helping" you mean "helping on the US group’s terms". Martinvl (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Martin, where was the "agreement" to use this in the mainspace? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The agreement is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Road junction lists#M5 motorway where it has been for at least the last two years. Martinvl (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

No, that's a project-based manual of style reference. Where is the "consensus" for it? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The "agreement" was more or less "you won't stop complaining and we're getting sick of this, so fine go do your own thing." --Rschen7754 22:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I did when I wrote the templates. Martinvl (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rschen,

There are a number of reasons why the UK Roads group were different to road groups from other countries:

• First of all, how developed were the road groups in countries other than the UK? If they were starting with a “blank piece of paper”, they probably welcomed assistance. If they had already developed their own style, they might well resent being told to change.
• There is an ethic in the UK that the government gives out very few details about roads, railways etc, but that geeks (let’s be honest you and I are both geeks or have tendencies that way) publish lots of good work. This makes it difficult to get "reliable sources" in the Wikipedia sense, but the UK editors found it frustrating being told by outsiders what was good and what was bad. Things were probably done in too heavy-handed a manner.
• The UK model for road junction lists was based on the pattern used by, amongst others, the
  The Automobile Association
  - the signs in each direction being displayed separately. There was almost certainly resentment at being told to change things, especially when no good reason was given.
• A good reason against change was the demand to include one or more location columns in RJLs is that such information is totally meaningless in the UK situation. From my own experience, I have lived in the UK and in South African. I have worked in Germany, Netherlands and in Italy. I have researched my family history in both the United Kingdom and in the Netherlands (which require a detailed knowledge of local administrative areas). From this background I am able to compare the British approach to location identification with that used elsewhere - take it from me, unless you have lived here, you don't know what a mess it is – much of continental Europe benefits from the
  Napoleon administrative reforms, but the UK does not. One classic case is that of Middlesex
  - the country was abolished in 1965 when it was absorbed by Greater London, but continued to be an offical part of postal addresses in 1996. It is stil often used today in postal ddresses.

Martinvl (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

"There was almost certainly resentment at being told to change things, especially when no good reason was given." - yes there is, we are a general purpose encyclopedia, not a road map company, road atlas company, highway organization, etc. We are not bound by whatever format

The Automobile Association

uses. Furthermore, we must comply with the Wikipedia-wide MOS.

Nobody has mandated any specific form of identifying location. Be it counties, townships, being near a city eve, whatever works, just as long as there's a column of text that the general reader can use to figure out where the heck a junction is. It's that simple. --Rschen7754 22:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Taking this to DRN

It is clear that we are not getting anywhere. I think that it is appropriate that this is taken to

• Dispute Overview:

  The page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Road junction lists catalogues the columns that should appear in a Road Junction List (for example Interstate 10 in California#Exit list and M25 motorway#Junctions). A dispute between editors split roughly along UK/US lines has been simmering for a number of years regarding the differences in style of these two road junction lists with the US editors arguing for more standardisation across all of Wikipedia and UK editors arguing that regional differences make such standardisation impracticable.

• How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

  Are the UK editors being unreasonable in declining to add "location" columns to their RJLs or are the US editors failing to take the UK situation into account? A parallel ongoing discussion on the use of miles or kilometres is outside the scope of this DRN.

I have been as careful as possible in the above wording to be both absolutely neutral in describing the situation and to be clear in what we are discussing. Do you wish to make any comments before I go ahead? Martinvl (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The dispute is that you aren't listening to consensus. "A dispute between editors split roughly along UK/US lines has been simmering for a number of years" is wrong because The Rambling Man is from the UK. Evad37 is also from Australia. But whatever, I know that you're not going to listen to me, or to anything that DRN says if it doesn't go your way, anyway. --Rschen7754 08:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

And although he's not currently active at the moment, "our" side in the debates was also represented by Floydian, who's Canadian. Trying to make this into a UK–US issue is gross oversimplification. Imzadi 1979 → 13:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Road junction lists".

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

• It is an early step to resolve content disputes after
  talk page
  discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

• It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
• It is not a place to discuss disputes that are
  dispute resolution forums
  .
• It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
• It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

• Discussions should be
  the other editors
  . Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
• Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{
  subst:drn-notice
  }} on their user talk page.
• Sign and date your posts with
  four tildes
  "~~~~".
• If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 08:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

DR/N

First of all, "Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia." Secondly, I have not broken the civility policy on Wikipedia. Thirdly, you have a conflict of interest, and I have asked you to recuse, and you have not, which is even more disturbing. --Rschen7754 10:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate behavior at WP:DRN

Please stop reverting edits made by dispute resolution volunteers. We have a well-worked-out system for resolving disputes, and you, as an involved party, should not interfere with our efforts. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all, Amadscientist has a conflict of interest and should be recusing, and secondly, I am reverting inappropriate editing of my comments. This sort of clerking would not stand anywhere else on the English Wikipedia. --Rschen7754 10:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Rscehn7754, it would appear the DRN is badly proposed in any case, just another attempt to remonstrate about perceived US-centric editing by someone who feels they

own the UK road lists. If I were you, I'd just opt out. The Rambling Man (talk

) 10:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that is the best course of action. However, I am sufficiently disturbed by how the DRN process operates, and I think it may need a bit of a shakeup down the road. --Rschen7754 10:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

That may certainly be the case. I've never really been involved over there, but whenever I was, I found it to be entirely toothless and an opportunity for some people to pretend they could flex some invisible Wiki-muscles. Better off ignoring it for now and getting on with some real editing. Happy Easter by the way, should that sort of thing ring your bell! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if it wasn't me that was at the center of this, I'd be quite amused by the amount of power-tripping going on [3] [4]. If I ever did that as a SPI clerk, I'm sure that I would be asked to resign pretty shortly thereafter. Ah well, that's for another day. Thanks for the comment, and Happy Easter to you too! --Rschen7754 11:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that you should test your theory by bringing this alleged wrongdoing before the community and seeing whether there is a consensus to allow dispute resolution volunteers to enforce the dispute resolution noticeboard guidelines. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, somebody really wants to pick a fight, huh? Even after I've already stated that I won't be addressing this now, given that... I already have another dispute on my hands? --Rschen7754 19:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You completely misread me, so I apologize for not being sufficiently clear. Let me try again. The two of you clearly have issues with the way

WP:DRN operates. What I am suggesting is that, rather than being aggressively insulting towards the DRN volunteers and making vague threats of "a bit of a shakeup down the road", you get involved in improving DRN by raising your concerns in a calm, rational manner on the DRN talk page. While I must admit that your behavior appears to me to be an blatant attempt to pressure the DRN volunteers to allow you to completely ignore the DRN guidelines in a dispute that you are heavily involved in, that does not mean that you don't also have legitimate criticisms, and I really would like to see those criticisms addressed, and if needed, the DRN process modified to address them. --Guy Macon (talk

) 23:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

If you think that we are being "aggressively insulting", then perhaps you should not be involved in part of the dispute resolution process. My "case" has been closed, so what sort of interest do I have in the matter? Finally, I am entirely certain that any proposals that we make on the DRN talk page will be stonewalled, so I'm not going to go that route. I also find it concerning that now several people have weighed in on the situation and found significant problems with the DRN process. --Rschen7754 00:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do think that the following comments...

"someone who feels they own the UK road lists"

"an opportunity for some people to pretend they could flex some invisible Wiki-muscles."

"power-tripping going on"

"The 'volunteers' act as if they're beyond reproach"

"very cabalistic and self-appointed"

"the 'volunteers' who, while they claim they're trying to "resolve dispute" actively encourage dispute through their attitude."

...are aggressively insulting, especially coming from an "administrator" who, in theory, should know better. (You might want to note how putting one word in quotes changes the tone of the sentence.) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you really believe that, then you should bring it to ANI. --Rschen7754 00:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. --Rschen7754 06:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You're not the first

You're not the first sysop to be shocked by the way WP:DRN works Rschen7754. And specifically Amadscientist regarding

The alternative is to just ignore that this "noticeboard" even exists. The "volunteers" act as if they're beyond reproach, ironic considering that any discussion about any particular editor's behaviour rather than content behaviour leads to the "invitation to leave the discussion". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

DRN obviously needs quite a bit of a shakeup. This reminds me of

WP:BAG in 2008, very cabalistic and self-appointed. It took a few tries to get them to reform, but they eventually did. Whatever is to be done, it's gotta be radical; I don't think putting a {{rfc}} tag on WT:DRN will bring sufficient attention to the matter. I'll be thinking about this over the next few days. --Rschen7754

20:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The worst thing is the attitude of the "volunteers" who, while they claim they're trying to "resolve dispute" actively encourage dispute through their attitude. Odd one. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is new to me. When I gave a hand at solving disputes, I never found this kind of problems. I always encouraged the participants to express themselves how the wished, and to do their best effort to collaborate to find a solution. And I always reached peaceful solutions. Of course, I agree that DRN needs a new face. I already managed to get the Spanish MedCom to wash theirs with a new, effective process, but it seems that it'll be hard to do it at DRN. Regards. —

²¹

22:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you brought up your suggested reforms on the DRN talk page? If not, how do you know that "it'll be hard to do it at DRN" if you have never tried? You are more than welcome to get involved in improving DRN by raising your concerns in a calm, rational manner on the DRN talk page. If you have legitimate criticisms, I would very much like to see those criticisms addressed, and if needed, the DRN process modified to address them. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I brought my concerns about the process to the talk page, and was stonewalled. --Rschen7754 00:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Were you using another account? A user contribution search[7] doesn't show you as ever having posted to Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard

The posts that I made last night, of course. --Rschen7754 00:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah. I thought that perhaps sometime in the past you had actually posted some legitimate concerns. I don't consider claiming that you should be exempt from the DRN guidelines to be raising a legitimate concern. If you ever decide to make a suggestion other than "Rschen7754 should be allowed to do whatever he wants" I encourage you to bring up your suggested reforms on the DRN talk page. I am going to unwatch this page now, per

WP:IAD. --Guy Macon (talk

) 00:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I have never claimed that. --Rschen7754 00:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Yes, I did brought my concerns twice. Look up on the archives and you'll see. —

²¹

04:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all, let me just say that the most important part of all of this is that we are all human and we each need to remember that much. Myself and a number of other volunteers have indeed warned editors per our guideline that they may be asked to leave the discussion and I have indeed been forced to do such before. Whether this continues to be the practice or not will be determined but that option has always existed. I want to address the fact that many times, myself and other volunteers have posted at the originating talk pages after the dispute has been filed. This is done to better understand the dispute and was indeed the case with the Men's Rights movement dispute. I was not involved with the dispute and I have done this a number of times to clarify the situation when the dispute is very complicated before the case is even opened, but after the case has been filed.

Ramblingman states "they claim they're trying to "resolve dispute" actively encourage dispute through their attitude". This perception is propagated due to a serious issue of attempting to not let an editor manipulate the process. No one is better than the other. My perception is that some manner of control needs to take place. However this situation clearly shows that control is not the best route. We encourage our volunteers to set ground rules. And we do discourage the mention of editors in the openings. My first attempt to collapse the opening of Rschen7754 was followed by a request to reform the opening without mention of individual editors. I didn't have a chance to leave a note here before everything evolved as it did.

I am no different than Rschen7754. I am no better and I am no worse. I can certainly agree (with Steven who suggested this) that I could have made a note on the user talk page before I took any action. When the editor makes their way to DR/N their tone may be perceived as hostile simply for the reason that, by the time they make it to us, they are at the end of their rope and are indeed quite angry with the situation. It doesn't help the situation to further anger them with an action that will make them feel that they are being rigidly forced to adhere to a guideline they may not even know about. Volunteers at the DR/N do not have any special powers, but...as I have said since I first volunteered, we all have the same power, not the same weakness. We all have differing levels of tools and knowledge, but we all are equal. Sometimes people mistake that for thinking one is better than the other, but standing eye to eye with everyone, new, old, experience and un-experienced, admin, bureaucrat or IP is not an attempt to make one feel lesser. I have been very firm about this. I treat everyone the same, and unfortunately I have dealt with some of the more difficult cases and spent weeks on them.

I want to apologize for the perceptions I have created with Rschen7754 and for the treatment they felt was not appropriate. I will not lie. I don't feel I did anything I have seen other volunteers do and emulate in return. We have concerns of editor manipulation of the process and have discussed templates and when we need to warn editors quite recently, but regardless of that or my own perceptions, I am sorry that Rschen7754 took this personally. It was not intended as such.--

I accept your apology and understand that it was nothing personal. However, if those actions have become the norm, then something needs to change at DRN, which is why I nominated it for MFD. DRN is part of the English Wikipedia and must follow the principles and guidelines of the latter. I don't actually want to see DRN shut down, but if there is no willingness to reform, then it should be shut down, as it is making some disputes worse than they were to begin with. I talked to Steven Zhang last night and he understands my concerns, which is largely why I withdrew. The question is whether the others who participate in the process are willing to make the necessary changes to the process - not just so that it can avoid being shut down, but so that it will truly benefit the encyclopedia. --Rschen7754 20:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not know whether all of your concerns will be addressed, but it has been a catalyst for work to continue. I certainly don't want to begin anew any arguments we may have had from the other night but I would at least like to say that DR/N does follow the principles and guidelines of Wikipedia, as do I. I have studied our guidelines and policies heavily over the last few years, including participating in discussions and re-writes. I spoke with Steven last night as well. I urge you to continue to discuss you concerns with us on the DR/N talk page so that your views are not overlooked or forgotten. Much needs to be addressed as we often do. The most important thing is to have enough editors involved to form a good, solid consensus or all that happens is someone comes along later and questions it, changes it or starts a consensus discussion anew. So, I welcome you to take part in these discussions that are surely to begin shortly and offer your opinions to what you feel is appropriate. Thanks!--

talk

) 22:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Rschen7754. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 06:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm

}} template.

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