Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 30

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 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

I feel that there's a need for opening a case on a provisional basis. In some cases – not many – I need to get a grip on what it is I'm likely to accomplish for that case, which requires asking a lot of pointed questions and gaining some capital in the discussion. But I need to get that rolling before formal informal mediation starts, typically because the filer is generally not clued* in on how consensus works. Also, I need to protect it from being closed by other volunteers.

Right now I'm just adding <!-- this is EXTREMELY provisional /xavexgoem --> immediately after the {{DRN case status|open}} template.

Not-terribly-well-organized questions:

• Is this "provisional" notion acceptable at all?
• Are there concerns about opening cases provisionally that I haven't considered?
• Does my current method conflict with other moderator's expectations of what an open case is to an unacceptable extent?
• Is there an alternative process that would work just as well or better?
• Is this "provisional" notion actually no different from a regularly opened case, and I'm making mountains out of molehills?
• How do we do deal with different moderators' thresholds for what an acceptable case is?

--

kind of guy. sCite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page).

I partly agree and partly disagree about good faith. Most conduct issues, in my opinion, are due to stubbornness, not cluelessness as such but not badness either. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with provisional opens as you describe, either with or without changing the tag. As for your last bullet point, I'm only inclined to dispute or modify another volunteer's actions and decisions when they're so utterly biased (I can't think of a case since the beginning of DRN, though there may have been one or two) or clueless (usually when a newcomer to Wikipedia tries to be a volunteer without any Wikipedia experience, which happens from time to time) that they're utterly and unquestionably out of line with no second-guessing of judgment calls needed. The way to do it is through the challenge procedure in the right-hand column at the top of the main page, which can be used by any editor, not just the parties to the case. Whether I try to have a word with the volunteer in private first or immediately challenge depends on the circumstances, but it must be kept in mind that any open criticism of a volunteer by another volunteer weakens the confidence of the parties in that volunteer. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I thought that the provisional open of the Al-Ahbash case was unorthodox, amounting to a Socratic examination of the filing party. I was satisfied with the result, which was that it worked in getting the filing party to disparage all previous efforts to resolve the case and so justified the close. I now can see that provisional opens in some cases may be a good idea. They require good judgment by the provisional moderator, which was shown in the recent case. If the volunteer doesn't have a clear idea as to why they want to do a provisional open, then they shouldn't do it. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Do we need to add a statement to the description of what this noticeboard is for that we do not handle complaints by paid editors against volunteer editors? We have another such case. Or is there a volunteer among us who is willing to moderate such cases when they are filed? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I for one am not comfortable moderating disputes with paid editors.

Xavexgoem (talk

) 17:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

So long as the community is willing for them to edit, I'm opposed to institutionally denying them the benefit of dispute resolution processes. On the other hand, any volunteer who doesn't not want to take that kind of case should not be required to take them (any more than they're required to take any case of any kind). We have a similar situation with IP editors: There's a considerable fraction of Wikipedians who don't believe IP editors should be allowed to edit, but so long as they are allowed to do so by the community (or the Foundation), then I don't think that they should be institutionally denied dispute resolution, though individual DR volunteers should not be required to take those cases. In either case this may, of course, result in those cases dying on the vine for lack of acceptance, but that can happen to any case that volunteers don't want to take for whatever reason. Moreover, there's this: In almost every dispute involving a paid editor or an IP editor there's a non-paid or non-IP editor also involved. Are we going to deny cases if the paid/IP editor is the OP but accept them if the non-paid/IP editor is the OP? What if an paid/IP editor is the OP, but the non-paid/IP editor files an opening statement before someone gets around to closing the case because it was the paid/IP editor who filed; are we going to deny DR to the non-paid/IP editor (or make them refile) merely because the other party pulled the DR trigger first? Are we going to make a value judgment about who the "bad guy" in a case is and only close those cases in which the paid/IP editor is the aggressor? Part of our value is our impartiality. Even if we take some cases in which the paid/IP editor isn't the OP or bad guy, haven't we signaled our lack of impartiality as a noticeboard by saying that we would not have taken it if had been filed or constituted differently? And isn't our impartiality all that we have to give? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with TransporterMan. I am more than comfortable moderating a content dispute between a paid editor and a volunteer. I had interactions between User:Arturo at BP and other editors during that situation and understand the paid editing requirements etc. enough to be on top of that part if needed.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Question: should paid editors be directed to
  WP:COIN as a first step, before seeking a discussion at DRN? It would seem that COIN can handle most issues informally. If this fails, then this noticeboard may be the appropriate next steps. Any thoughts on this? K.e.coffman (talk
  ) 04:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The remit of WP:COIN is "determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline." That's a much more limited scope than DRN so I don't think referral to COIN as a first step is warranted as a general policy. Referral to WP:COIN would be appropriate in some circumstances; e.g., if one editor in a dispute thought another had an undisclosed COI. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes. As Boris says, the role of COIN is primarily to adjudicate undeclared COIs, and, secondarily, whether an edit by a declared COI editor is appropriate. The cases that I am referring to are cases where a declared COI editor has requested an edit and the edit has been declined, and the COI editor then comes here to discuss/complain. In one case, after they didn't get the article written the way that their client wanted it, and didn't get satisfaction here, they went to
      neutrality than they do. The problem is that we are caught between two unpleasant alternatives. If we routinely decline cases by COI editors, the COI editors will complain that they aren't getting their right to make requests. If we routinely accept cases by COI editors, COI editors will learn that they can always drag an edit request to DRN. Robert McClenon (talk
      ) 00:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

DRN declaration for transparancy

I just accepted the DRN request for the article Desperate Measures (musical). I don't think I have had interactions with the editors although Blue Rasberry seems familiar but that could be because of how long they've been around and how involved they are on Wikipedia.

While reviewing the article the first thing I noticed is that I have worked with one of the persons in the production the article is about. We are not personal friends, I do not know them and have no link to the production. Actually never heard of it because I don't work in theatre anymore and haven't for years. The actor is

(which is an article I created).

Basically its a coincidence but I felt inclined to mention it.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a sort of disconnect between the purpose of this noticeboard,

. However, not all such content disputes are appropriate for DRN. The closure of these disputes at DRN, after the filer was told by ANI to come to DRN, results in unhappy disillusioned editors.

An additional problem with the advice to go to DRN from ANI is that the ANI thread is usually still open, so that the dispute is already also pending in a conduct forum. ANI editors may not know that DRN does not handle a dispute that is also open anywhere else.

The advice probably should be to read

and follow one of the dispute resolution procedures, of which DRN is only one. However, we, the DRN volunteers, are not likely to be able to get the ANI admins and volunteers to change their advice.

One thing that we, DRN volunteers, should probably do is to be aware that advice is being given that is inconsistent with what DRN is. Sometimes we can direct a filing party as to what would be a better approach, possibly a

, or simply going back to the article talk page. One possibility, but I don't recommend it, would be for us to become a first stop for all content disputes and assist editors in finding how to resolve their content disputes (try discussing on the talk page, try an RFC, try RSN, stop complaining about conduct if you have a content dispute, etc.).

Thoughts? Robert McClenon (talk) 09:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that "best practice" would be for the ANI folks to handle content disputes by referring the filer to

WP:AN? If we start with the admins, it may trickle down from there... DonIago (talk

) 15:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not surprising that people think that the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard would be the first stop of Dispute Resolution. Just sayin' :)

Xavexgoem (talk

) 18:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Xavexgoem - Yes. Our name implies something more than what we do. As I said, we could expand the scope of this noticeboard, but I don't recommend it. Or we could change the name of this noticeboard. User:Doniago - Yes. Good idea. Robert McClenon (talk

) 23:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes I get one right. :p DonIago (talk) 14:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm only going to say this now, because I will be literally incapable of resisting the temptation later, and I need to get it out of my system, and then we can move on:

I think we can agree that "Dispute Resolution" is over-broad, since what we do is only one aspect of it (informal mediation). I'd even go so far as to say that "noticeboard" is a stretch, given the number of volunteers who frequent here, and the way it functions unlike the other noticeboards. In fact, given our number of volunteers, and given the unique skillset required of said volunteers, it's almost like we're a... I dunno... the nearest thing I can think of is like... a cabal? A cabal of mediators? So I guess my suggestion would be something like "The Cabal of Mediators."

Xavexgoem (talk

) 06:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC) It's a bit wordy; I'm working on it.

Well, the blunt approach would be to rename it "Content Dispute Resolution Noticeboard". DonIago (talk) 14:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Xav, q.v. Mediation Cabal, name's been taken. There is no cabal (long live the Cabal). 😁 Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

:D

Xavexgoem (talk

) 15:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• ears prick up* - I heard someone mention a cabal?. (Gotta say, having Xavexgoem raise from the dead and return here really makes it feel like the old days.
  Steven Crossin
  19:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

In all seriousness, I think there is a way we can work with this problem that does not require too much extra work by us.

1. The predicament is that we are not a port-of-call for DR, yet editors, admins, and our documentation treats us as though we were.
2. The easy solution is to make it abundantly clear that we're just one process out of many, and either ignore the contradiction implied by our name, or change our name (which would be a lot of tedious work for unknown gain).
3. The hard solution is to take an active role in helping editors draft RfCs, noticeboard threads, etc, etc. We do not have the manpower for this.
4. My notion: We do not have to take the active roll, and we can still serve as the port-of-call for DR to redirect disputes to better forums. We already do this when we close new cases and add our recommendation in the "reason" bit of {{DRN archive top}}.

What I think we need is a formal process for redirecting disputes. The point of the process isn't so much to have it for process' sake, but to set up an implied contract that our recommendation means that the dispute should go to that other forum. As it stands, our recommendations are about a 3 on a descending scale of 10 to "yeah, whatever, I guess".

I think we have the capital for this. If we didn't, people wouldn't bother to come to us at all. And again, our documentation (like our

) 22:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

...So anyway, I think there should be a {{DRN case status|redirect=[[WP:3O]]}} or something similar.

Xavexgoem (talk

) 17:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the relationship between admin and DRN is pretty crappy and has been since the nomination to delete this board. Seeing that they can't keep their own behavior between the mop and mediators separate, let me know if this ever gets ironed out. Till then...I am removing myself from this board. There seems to be enough editors to handle the disputes we have and we don't need outside crap from people just to be jerks. Since I was forced to remove myself from a DRN request in favor of what may well be two actors edit warring over promotional coverage, I'll just stick to editing articles. It was fun while it lasted but I seriously don't see this board lasting long if admin are not cooperating and actively interfering. Screw it. They have the mop...let them clean up the mess.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I have had a editor raise concerns over my editing the article at this point to return referenced material about multiple living persons removed by one of the participants that has accused the other of being the actress in the show. Since there is also concern the other editor may be the other actress in question in the content dispute, I had intended to watch to see what either editor would do after a warning was given on the DRN. I have not mentioned anything further on the request and made no filing at the COI noticeboard as all activity on the article and with the editors has seemed to stop. When the editor who raised the concern received a reply they basically blew me off with a TLDR and "Whatever".

I am removing myself from further mediation of the request or further investigation or involvement with the dispute or either editors. Mahalo!--Mark Miller (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Mark Miller - If there was a moderator (and there was), the case can be closed as Failed or as a general close by the moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

What's the custom around here regarding DRN volunteers becoming involved in the disputes they're supposed to be mediating? I'll note that

07:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It appears the dispute has been closed here? If that's the case, I don't see a concern with Mark becoming involved as long as he's not claiming to be uninvolved. DonIago (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It appears that the mediator did become involved in the case. Then, when his involvement was called out, he did the right thing, which was to withdraw from the case and close it. It might have been better for him to have made a somewhat more concilatory withdrawal statement, acknowledging that he had ceased to be neutral, but I don't think it is worth hashing it out. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I will suggest that, if the original parties to the case still think that there is a dispute, this would be the sort of case that could be taken to the Mediation Committee, which still exists although it is mostly inactive. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I am no longer a volunteer here but I will say that this talk page has already stated that volunteers should never edit the disputed page before taking the case and should only avoid it after taking the case but has allowed minor edits. The DRN guidelines state; "Avoid" not "Do not". The edit I made was to revert the removal of sourced content regarding multiple living persons and I made no judgement about it in regards to the dispute but it was returned because it effected the sourcing of the article and mentions of living persons which left that portion unreferenced without a reasoning. I stand by that edit and also that I was not called out for being involved as even the editor stated he was just asking me about the behavior which I stated our policy on. But he did ask me to step down and I agreed to and then removed myself from request as well as the DRN volunteer list. "It might have been better for him to have made a somewhat more concilatory withdrawal statement, acknowledging that he had ceased to be neutral, but I don't think it is worth hashing it out". I don't feel I had ceased to be neutral, I did not break any of our guidelines and policies on this noticeboard or the encyclopedia. When I responded the editor didn't even bother to read it. As far as my RFC, that is to guidelines and policy as is the neutral wording of the RFC question and requests from the noticeboards. RFC instructions suggest this and give links to the noticeboards. But again...I am not a DRN volunteer and removed myself after the edit to the article and before I had made any further comment on the DRN. When I left DRN I asked for someone to close the request as failed as the editor involved had continued to remove and add content that was about the dispute. I was told I could just close it myself and did.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, if an editor, reasonably or unreasonably, takes an objection to the moderator, the case cannot continue. Thank you. I hope that you will reconsider coming back as a volunteer on other cases. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't have anything against anyone in this situation. The editor is an admin and they are also continuing to watch and edit the page. It is just easier all around if I don't take any more cases here for a while if I am going to be challenged in that manner in the near future.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a discussion in progress on a talk page about whether an issue can be taken to DRN or to MedCom after there has been an RFC. I think that bringing an issue either to DRN for informal moderated discussion or to the Mediation Committee for formal mediation after there has been an RFC is a terrible idea. That reverses the proper order of dispute resolution, which should be, in my opinion: (1) article talk page (and possibly user talk pages); (2) DRN or specialized noticeboard; (3) RFC, for consensus, or Mediation Committee, for mediated settlement; (4)

) 21:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Are there any volunteers here who would be willing to moderate a dispute to change what was decided by an RFC?

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Robert is being kind and not identifying it as my talk page. As I've said after Robert posted this here, my comments there about applying to DRN (or MEDCOM) after going to RFC were, to my disgrace, misleadingly imprecise. While I generally agree with the sequence-of-dispute-resolution ideas Robert has raised, above, I don't think that those ideas should be required (with one possible exception, and that's the priority issue of what DR process should be closed if multiple processes are started at the same time). I do think, as I've said here before, that in those case requests where consensus has already clearly been achieved, whether through RFC or through general discussion, that there is no longer any dispute to resolve and that those requests should be rejected. But that's only in those cases in which there is an unmistakable consensus plain on the face of the discussion (or RFC) or where there's already been a consensus evaluation performed by another editor and consensus was found. (In the latter case, if a party wants to contest that evaluation the proper process is that given at Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures, not recourse to DR.) If the consensus is unclear or if there was a "no consensus" closure, then there is still an ongoing dispute and additional DR is, at least in theory, appropriate. Many, if not most, of those cases will be insoluble, trenches having been dug and positions fortified, but we at DRN and MEDCOM bring moderation to them, which is something they've not had before (often in more than one sense), so we do bring something to them that's not been there before and which may, if unlikely, work in some of them. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I must give my apologies, I forgot I volunteered to be coordinator for August to September. I've stepped up to the task now. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I think this section has been mistakenly completed by Flightsoffancy. The section seems to be intended to be where BilCat responds to Flightsoffancy's take on dispute provided in the previous sections, not where Flightsoffancy provides a further summary of the dispute and BilCat's response(s) thereto. I'm sure that if this is indeed a mistake it was made in good faith; however, I'm not super familiar with the formatting working of these discssions, and thus I'm not how to fix this. Perhaps someone who regularly works on DRN can sort things out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear. Now I'm glad I haven't responded yet to the DR, as it makes what I've been dealing with more clear. For the record, the image in question has been deleted, so is no longer an issue, at least until it's uploaded again. - BilCat (talk

) 06:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

) 21:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice to Volunteers on Checking Cases

The last three case requests have all involved the filing party providing notice to other parties of the filing in a way that is not obvious on a quick check by a volunteer. Either the filers are getting creative at trying to confuse the volunteers, or the filers don't understand that the volunteers actually check whether notice was given, or something. Spend five minutes or so checking to see if the filing party has found some creative and unobvious way to give notice that isn't obvious on first glance, before stating that the filer forgot to provide notice. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:As one of the people you are talking about how are this (a new section on the other user's talk page with a link to the discussion) and this (a link on the relevant talk page informing the user that a discussion had been started) not obvious enough? A skywriter or a singing telegram being beyond the means of a simple man like myself, what else should I have done? PS: Forgive my sarcasm, but as your post implied that I was not acting in good faith by trying to obfuscate the discussion or "confuse" another user, instead of constructively trying to resolve a dispute, I feel like you have already set a particular tone here. PaulCHebert (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

User:PaulCHebert - There is a template for the purpose of giving notice. If a volunteer doesn't see that you did give notice with a comment, please be polite to the volunteer, who is also trying to help, rather than being dismissive. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@

)

Yeah, I'll chime in on the noticeboard. Doesnt belong here. Looking at their contribution history though, it seems most of their edits are related to MLM companies, but from what I've seen they've been pretty courteous and civilized overall, so I'll give them some advice on how to proceed. (give me a few hours)

Steven Crossin

05:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Question: In my suggested edit of 11/27/18 to Wikipedia's website entitled "Historical Jesus," was I "tooting my own horn" too much (i.e., engaging in "advertising for promotional purposes"), or instead was I successfully solving the problem once and for all of the identity of the historical Jesus (a solution which deserves to be disseminated by Wikipedia, and not suppressed)?

DRN does not accept case requests through the talk page, but would not accept this case if it had been properly filed, due to insufficient talk page discussion at the article. The editor should post his concerns at the Wikipedia Teahouse. - TransporterMan (TALK ) 17:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

On 11/27/18 I made a suggested edit to Wikipdedia's "Historical Jesus" site that was based on my own research, including an article published in Vigiliae Christianae (a journal generally considered by scholars to be one of the world's leading periodicals, if not the leader, in the area of early Christian studies). Wikipedia's editor Valenciano did not like the idea that I had cited my own authored sources (including a later book), calling this "advertising for promotional purposes," but, as I explained to Valenciano, no one else but I had done the requisite work in this area. Who else could I cite if no one but I had done any work along these lines? I would like Valenciano to answer this question. He responded to me in a matter of several minutes and never even bothered to check out my sources. At the very least, he should have checked out my sources. As quoted in the very first few pages of my book, my article has received critical acclaim from many of the foremost historical Jesus scholars in the world and should not be dismissed lightly. I am only asking that Wikipedia check out my two sources (which I am reprinting below): 1. Laupot, Eric (2000). "Tacitus' Fragment 2: The Anti-Romaan Movement of the Christiani and the Nazoreans". Vigiliae Christianae, 54 (3): 233-247. Available online at https://infidels.org/library/modern/eric_laupot/nazoreans.html. 2. Laupot, Eric (2010). The Identity of the Historical Jesus and the Founding of Christianity by Roman Counterintelligence. Online at http://christiani-nazorean.info. My works demonstrate the identity of the historical Jesus, and they deserve to be disseeminated by Wikipedia and not suppressed. (By the way, the copyright for the article is in my name, not the publisher's). Eric Laupot EricLaupot (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC) --EricLaupot (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Elizabeth II, Gustaf VI Adolf etc

It appears like the poster of the case, has lost interest. GoodDay (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comments to the MOS. Robert McClenon (talk

) 08:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 12:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@

) 18:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd be willing to tag-team. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 19:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I've got too many real world issues and obligations at the moment to be able to commit to having the time to work on this (plus, frankly, I really don't like to mediate ethno-political disputes), so I'm going to have to pass. But thanks for the invitation. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Mediation Committee be willing to mediate this dispute? For that matter, would any of them be willing to take part in an experiment in tag-team mediation? (As I said, I am not optimistic that that will work, but it might be better than nothing or better than disruptive editing.) Can you notify the members of the former Mediation Committee, or can we add some of their names to the list of volunteers here? Robert McClenon (talk

) 17:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would object to being asked. The list of final and emeritus members still exists. I think it might be pushy to add them as DRN volunteers without their consent, but dropping messages on their talk pages would be fine and if you limit it to the final members you'd only need to do six of them. The Medcom mailing list is no longer reliable. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

None of the remaining members of the Mediation Committee were editing regularly, as in at least every other day, and so none of them seemed like plausible candidates for the role. However, this dispute has arisen less than a month after one of the stupidest decisions made by the English Wikipedia community in a long time, to close down the Mediation Committee because it had not been used recently, and this is a case that calls for the Mediation Committee. Now: What forum was that boneheaded decision made on? I need to ask them for suggestions as to what to do instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, based on the assessment that the controversy was basically nationalistic, I closed the request and advised them to take it to

the boomerang essay, and should be aware that Arbitration Enforcement works by taking unpleasant action against unpleasant editors. Robert McClenon (talk

) 19:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

1984 Sikh massacre closing, revert me if you as a regular DRN volunteer disagree

As any regular reader of this talk page will know, I'm generally in favor of treating IP editors here just like registered editors. I have, however, closed 1984 Sikh massacre because there are not only many IP editors involved, some have been identified and blocked as proxies, at least one puppetmaster has been blocked, and the IP editor who filed the case has no edits at the article talk page. Back in June there was off-wiki canvassing threatened. In an ethnic/religious inflamed dispute of this kind I don't see that we will do anyone any good — even if it is possible to do any good, noting Robert's note that this may be a yes-no matter — and will substantially risk aiding bad behavior if we let this go on without everyone at the very least having a fixed identity linked to any IP addresses previously used for discussion or editing. If any regular volunteer here disagrees with the closure, please feel free to revert my closure without further discussion. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I have found that mediation or moderated discussion in nationalistic areas that are subject to

India Pakistan and Afghanistan, and there is a nationalistic movement among some of the Sikhs. I wasn't about to try to handle that. Robert McClenon (talk

) 17:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I have been lurking watching the board for a while and I would eventually like to volunteer on a case but whenever I see a case, I'm not sure if I know exactly how to handle the issue. I've read the case reported

) 05:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Philipnelson99 - Please, and thank you. You may need to slow them down and keep them on topic. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I'm opening it now, feel free to jump in if I'm not handling it correctly,

Upon further examination, I am going to close the case because one of the users involved has taken this to

WP:ANI... ~ Philipnelson99 (talk

)

Proposal - eliminate the DRN Coordinator position

The coordinator position does not actually do virtually anything. Since the inception of this project there has always been, at any given time, one or two or, occasionally, more volunteers who keep the wheels moving and the doors open. Those people change from time to time, sometimes lasting for a long period of time and sometimes less. But their primary characteristic is that they're active and attentive, most often on a daily all-day basis, and that they get to, comment upon, and handle most incoming disputes very quickly, generally within hours (if not minutes) after a case is filed. As a result, the named coordinator — when different — generally has nothing to do. Many of the people who sign up for coordinator do so months before their term is due and have passed on to other wiki-activities, if not left Wikipedia altogether or become so infrequent, that by the time their term comes up they're nowhere to be found or are such infrequent participants that they may as well not be coordinator. Except for running the occasional volunteer roll call, which any active volunteer can do, the coordinator really has no practical function or purpose. I propose marking the coordinator sign-up page as historical and removing the references to the coordinator from the mainpage header and all other DRN pages. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:39, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• This makes much more sense than eliminating the
  Mediation Committee. That statement, in itself, does not imply that I agree with the elimination of the position. However, I do agree, because I haven't seen that the actual role of coordinator has any real effect on the functioning of this noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk
  ) 04:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
• Seems reasonable, not really needed anymore :-) As TransporterMan said, the position is largely filled by others (and back in the day when we had tons of threads, it was probably more needed than now).
  Steven Crossin
  11:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• I've notified the current coordinator,
   ■
  13:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I was going to give it until the 3rd or thereabouts and then implement if no objections heard, but sooner is fine with me. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Given that the board has functioned perfectly in my two month absence, I agree that there is no need for the position. If the amount of volunteers ever rises dramatically, which is unlikely, there may again be a need for it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Change implemented. Please feel free to tweak as you see fit. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I stand to be corrected, but this is the first time I can remember since the creation of DRN that the request page is entirely empty. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I think so. It didn't last long. (It would have started sooner if I had remembered to remove the Do Not Archive date from closed cases, but that is a detail. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

If anyone wants this IDF thread, feel free to take it. I'm losing my mind over how something as simple as including the word stated got to this. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm gonna close the thread, but I feel like I didn't do so well with this one. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Only one editor - and therefore only one viewpoint - is contributing to the discussing, however the issue is still unresolved and the person that is actually talking still thinks there is valid discussion to be had. It has been so long that the thread is getting automatically archived. Does anybody have any advice for what I should do?

Thanks, RobbieM13 (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I closed the World Rally thread. We have often found it problematic to try to moderate disputes with IP addresses that shift. In this case the filing party is editing from an IP address but indicates that they are User:Prisonermonkeys. It appears that they cannot log in and have not logged in for six months, probably because their password is lost or corrupted and they do not have a recovery email address. The answer is to create a new account, and declare on their user page what their previous account was. Since dealing with multiple IP addresses in this case would be unnecessarily difficult, I closed the thread. They should create a new account. This doesn't happen very often, but when it does happen, it is dealt with by creating a new account. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thread closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

There are two threads that are listed as having six editors each. I think that six editors is either at or over the upper end of how many editors can feasibly engage in moderated discussion. Does anyone have any opinions on threads with six or more editors? In both cases, I have suggested that an

) 20:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft space dispute

I'm looking for advice about a disagreement that's occurred regarding the content of an article moved from main space to draft space and wondered if this is the right place to bring it. I was asked to comment on the issue and have attempted to mediate between the two users concerned but with little success. If here is not the right place could someone direct me to an alternative noticeboard where such a discussion would be more appropriate? Cheers in advance, This is Paul (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Articles for Deletion, and a deletion discussion will be conducted, which takes seven days. Robert McClenon (talk
  ) 05:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Cheers for the advice Robert. The article isn't one I created and the disagreement is not mine. But I did try to get both users to reach a compromise when one of them asked me for my thoughts. DIscussions relating to this can be found here and here. As I've said in the discussions I don't think I've ever created anything in the draft space for peer review so am unfamiliar with the procedure. The user who created the article seems to be under the impression they cannot move it back, but from what you've said above that's obviously not the case. I've also suggested improvements that could be made to the article (and the possibility of merging it with other similar small articles covering a similar subject to make something larger, more rounded and with more references). I've even offered to do this if both parties were in agreement, but it seems they're not in agreement, so they're at impasse. Thanks again anyway, This is Paul (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I am the author of the article in question. I'd posted the original article without references and it was right that this was brought to my attention. However, instead of this being flagged up with the relevant notification at the top of the article, it was moved into draftspace. I subsequently added references and have also added new content. I hadn't been aware that I was able to promote the article back into the main encyclopaedia until Paul intervened and thank you Robert for confirming that I am able to do this and at some point I will return the article to the main encyclopaedia. Rillington (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Rillington, User:This is Paul - Once an article has been draftified, the best way to get it back into article space is to Submit it via AFC, and it will be reviewed by a reviewer, who can Accept it, which promotes it. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, and I have done just that. Rillington (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Cheers for that, I know what to do now if that ever happens to one of my articles. This is Paul (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure where else to put this. I mistakenly forgot to include "Talk:Tartary" rather than just "Tartary" when creating the request. Although I have corrected this in other sections, the error still persists in the template. Is there any way to update the template to correct this error? Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

folks,

I was wondering if there was any minimum requirements that are sought when looking for signing up volunteers for the Dispute Resolution cases. Any particular level of experience that you feel is necessary? I would hope that volunteers given (or taking) responsibility for resolving cases should have experience on the level of the editors bringing disputes here but I don't see anything specific listed on your sign-up page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: No, there are no formal requirements. MrClog (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@

Third Opinion before jumping in here (or, more often, after jumping in here and messing stuff up). Since 3O's don't "count" towards consensus and aren't binding tiebreakers, one can get a taste of dispute resolution there without much risk to the encyclopedia. I've been around since the beginning of DRN and we've toyed with having an experience requirement, but never implemented one because we have a tough time attracting enough volunteers in the best of times and some relatively-inexperienced newcomers do surprisingly well. To do well here, however, one really needs to have a fairly firm grip on the most important policies and guidelines and that generally comes more through experience than by just studying them. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK

) 20:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Edits to page under discussion

While

) 00:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Gay agenda on Voltron and edit war

Keith (Voltron) and Lance (Voltron) are labeled as gay despite no third person sources. There seems to dispute with no end. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

There is edit war going insisting Lance and Keith are gay without third party sources to support it. Is nobody going to do anything.

WP:ANEW. 331dot (talk

) 11:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for Volunteers

@

- Are any DRN volunteers available to take any of the multiple cases that we have that want moderators?

Thank you.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The bot has twice now removed the dispute on

) 04:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Popcornduff, User:MrClog - What was the Do Not Archive date, and how long was the thread idle? If the thread was continuing for more than two weeks, was it extended? Robert McClenon (talk

) 02:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The case was filed on 15 March 2019, and the Do Not Archive date was never set to anything other than 29 March 2019. When the thread was inactive for 24 hours each time, the bot concluded that it was an inactive expired thread. If a case runs for more than two weeks, someone should extend the archive date. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. I'm happy to do that if it's OK.

talk

) 03:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've re-added it with a new (arbitrary) expiry date of 29 May.

talk

) 12:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Pure disruption. More blocks to follow if the users involved don't drop the stick. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What kind of discussion were you looking for Mr. Clog? Jobrot --Jobrot (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC) I would like to see the dispute resolved. Hence posting here. Am I to be bullied by this world of yours further? --14.203.75.52 (talk) 10:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC) WP:DRN is only for discussing content disputes and we do not have the power to remove admin rights, ban users, etc. --MrClog (talk ) 10:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC) I'm not trying to report admin behaviour, I'm trying to do dispute resolution. --14.203.75.52 (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC) In which case your filing is incorrect and you should make a NEW filing. --MrClog (talk) 10:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)cc I'm still unclear. User:MrClog - are you saying El_C is abusing their admin powers by repeatly targetting a single user for non-existent infractions on a the frankfurt school talk page; where those infractions don't apply? Why is it invalid if the users are just trying to resolve a dispute? What's wrong with the second filling? Reverting until you can explain (in good faith, as you say). --203.220.150.46 (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC) WP:AN. This page is not for discussing user conduct. --MrClog (talk ) 12:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC) disruptive to me. --MrClog (talk ) 12:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC) As per your previous reply, I don't see myself opening a filing anytime soon. I'm only vaguely interested in critically questioning Wikipedia core values as a means of examining philosophical improvements - but I can just as easily walk away if consensus should go that way. More interested in who was "right" whatever that might mean. --203.220.150.46 (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The editors disagree as to whether the text that was added is what they agreed on. An editor added discussion after the bottom, and requested that we re-open the dispute. I won't re-open a dispute that was opened several times already and has gone on for seven weeks with an apparent resolution that didn't work. If text is added beyond the bottom of a closed thread, the bot doesn't archive it, so I moved the bottom of the closure and changed the top to a failure. Thank you for trying,

) 16:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Requesting any comments from User:TransporterMan. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

This experience has been like pulling teeth. The discussion has resumed at

talk

) 04:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Can any editor cancel a dispute?

) 02:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

disruptive editing though. --MrClog (talk

) 19:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Conduct issues about TPG

Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk

) 19:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I don't see how Arbitration Enforcement would assist. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

If you don't think that there are conduct issues, then don't go to Arbitration Enforcement. If you want to resolve a content issue, use

RFC. Arbitration Enforcement is a conduct forum. Robert McClenon (talk

) 23:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Take conduct discussion to RFC. Robert McClenon (talk ) 15:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm far more concerned with content and the conduct issues are just an obstacle to that. Why not WP:ANI for conduct issues? Onetwothreeip (talk ) 23:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC) What "conduct issues"? Here is one of your latest edits on the page. First of all, your edit summary was misleading. You claim "clear talk page consensus" for your edit, but there was no consensus to remove this content whatsoever. Secondly, you remove a lot of well sourced events which sources tell are related to the subject of the page. Therefore, your edit goes against WP:NPOV. Same with all other deletions you did before on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC) It was just you on the talk page who opposed removing that content. I wasn't aware that consensus meant "When My very best wishes agrees". Obviously the worst conduct issues here include yourself and X1\ following me to a completely different article to overturn one of my edits together. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments in wrong section

Take a conduct issue such as a violation of Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk ) 15:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Robert. I am appealing to you in your capacity as volunteer of the Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections case. I have encountered a situation which I have never seen after I started editing here in 2003. We know there are some written and unwritten rules at Wikipedia, and I want to be sure that I get this right. Maybe you can explain it to me. There are two rules which seem to have been violated here. I understand that we are only allowed to leave comments in our own sections. Myriad times I have seen that when an editor leaves a comment in the wrong place, it gets moved to their own section, with an edit summary describing why the move was done. Once a comment has received replies, it should not be removed. I have been getting unexpected pushback for doing the first. I've gotten to the point where reasoning doesn't work, and I don't want to edit war over it. Normally edit summaries serve the purpose of explanation, and the other editor is expected to read the edit summary and act accordingly, and in a civil and collaborative manner. In this case, late on, I realized that they were ignoring (I know they normally read edit summaries) my edit summaries, and that kind of uncollaborative reaction is what brings me here. Here's what's happened: 123IP left a response in my section. Edit summary: None. They left it immediately after the relevant comment of mine. On a regular talk page this is standard procedure, but not here. So I moved it to their own section, and also left an apology in my own section. Edit summary: moved comment to proper section and replied, with apology I had read their comment and double-checked what I had done, and it was true that I had misread the times of the comments. My bad. So I apologized and struck the incorrect part of my comment, which was the proper thing to do. They copied (not moved) it back to my comment section. Edit summary: Please don't delete my comment Then they apparently realized that the comment was still in their own section and deleted it. Edit summary: For what possible reason was this comment placed here, unchanged and without context? I moved it back again. Edit summary: It was moved because we are allowed to comment ONLY in our own sections. Feel free to add context. My apology was added. They completely deleted it, even though I had already replied. Edit summary: Don't move my comments, again I made one last try, hoping they would understand the edit summaries. Edit summary: We have rules here. Please don't remove comments which have been replied to. I apologized after this comment, so please don't remove it. They deleted it completely, even after the explanation. Edit summary: "Absolutely not. I did not put this here, you put this here. It makes no sense to be here. Do not edit this section again." Now my apology makes no sense. If I had realized that communicating with them using edit summaries wouldn't work, or, rather, that they would refuse to accept my explanations and would continue to violate our rules, I would have stopped a couple of steps earlier and asked you about this then. Well, now I need to get this situation sorted out. All I've gotten is uncollaborative and mildly uncivil pushback. I am hoping you will restore their comment for me as you have the authority to get it done. I even suggested in an edit summary that they could add the context, but they didn't follow that suggestion. -- talk ) 04:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC) And this is the first time I've experienced some of the actions that you and two other editors of the disputed article have been doing. The simple reason I do not want that in the section where I explain dispute is because it has nothing to do with the dispute and I want to keep my remarks on the matter as brief as possible. It simply has no place in that section, in any context. For what it's worth, your "explanation" that you made after you found out that what you said was wrong is also wrong, but I really don't care about pursuing it anymore. If it matters that much to you, I give you permission to put my comment into your own section if you feel that this is important context for your apology. Leaving it in my section does no such thing, it doesn't mention you and nothing there indicates it's anything to do with what you've said. You may quote my remarks if you wish. The reason this might seem uncollaborative is that I really don't care what BullRangifer does with my remarks, as long as they're not in my section which is about explaining the situation about a particular article, List of PlayStation 2 games , has nothing to do with this at all. As such I haven't been giving them suggestions on what to do with my remarks. Now can we stop this nonsense and actually discuss improving the article? Never have I been involved in an editorial dispute as convoluted as this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

talk

) 14:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

RFC, possibly after the editors with conduct issues are dealt with. A conduct forum, or a content issue. But not here. Your call. Robert McClenon (talk

) 15:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Huh? No, this is about the removal of a comment in this DS/N proceeding after replies to it had been written. Please restore that comment to 123IP's own section. That's all I'm asking. As the curator of the board you have the authority to do that. --

talk

) 15:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

No. I am not planning to try to resolve a dispute about coloring outside the lines, but have noted on the archive wrapper that there is a dispute. Since the original content issue is not being resolved here, it is not important exactly what was said in this non-proceeding unless it goes to arbitration, and I do not expect that it will go to arbitration, although maybe to arbitration enforcement. I am not planning to redact the imperfect record of a dispute that is beyond our ability to resolve. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a help request to User:TransporterMan or anyone else about the instructions. Can someone tell me where the instructions are that display to parties when they are entering statements? I want to edit the statement so that it is clear that a party should only edit in their own statement, and also that they may not remove anything once it has been replied to. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#This template editnotice doesn't work for a similar request that was made recently. Apparently the instructions over at {{Parenthetical referencing editnotice}} (the template you'll need to add this functionality if I've read/understood the discussion linked earlier properly)apparently I did not – all you need to do is edit the page I linked to below... aren't the easiest to follow. I think you have to modify the page at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard (which can only be created or edited by administrators, template editors, and page movers), but I haven't done this specific thing before so please double check before you make any changes on my behalf. Hopefully this points you in the right direction. - Paul^T+/_C 00:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Paul I wasn't trying to make changes on your behalf, but on mine, and I have the Page Mover privilege. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I simply meant that I didn't want you to rely solely on my explanation of how it works and to do your own double-checking before making changes. - Paul^T+/_C 14:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Robert, I think that this script is what creates the listing from the information given in the request form: click here. You can't edit it directly, but you can submit an edit request. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I am a new contributor. Anyone expert in middle east and medieval muslim history, I will like you to pay attention to a recent dispute that I had with a user while adding content to the page

". I have modified the content many times and added citations, but they keep on pressing for removal of this section. Please help me resolve this conflict.

Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The Muhammad bin Qasim dispute needs a new volunteer.

I have volunteered over the course of the last week to moderate this dispute and my performance has been unsatisfactory. I came in with absolutely no knowledge of the topic and my approach was perhaps too aggressive. I was asked to withdraw and have done so. --KIM JONG UNDO | CONTACT 19:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I have performed a

) 01:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Pallava dynasty origins

On the Talk: Pallava dynasty page I had proposed the inclusion of certain content that was removed about a month ago by a certain User:LovSLif. It was not reverted. So I did. I had also enunciated the reasons why it is Wikiworthy. Yet he in his typical fashion makes personal attacks and ethnically motivated comments. About a day ago or so I'd responded to that quite forthrightly. But when he continued to do that, I decided it wasn't worth the while. Now again he has been bluffing and babbling and poisoning the well, instead of addressing my arguments. Please take look at only the factual and logical points that I've made and address the dispute.

Best, Destroyer27 (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Destroyer27 (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Destroyer27 - Is this a request for assistance in resolving a dispute? If so, please file it on the project page. This is the talk page for discussing the project. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@

) 16:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I like the list format a lot better. It might be wise to do a numbered list. That way you can make reference to "rule 1" or "rule 2" when reminding participants to adhere to them. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I think they should belong in userspace - though of course you can link to them for others. Each person has their own way to handle disputes here and so one person's style of handling disputes shouldn't be seen as "the rules" - for example I am fine for participants to discuss with each other once I'm involved, and I guide the discussion between them. It's always worked for me and I've been doing this on and off since the dawn of time, so, those are my 2c. Happy for others to use them, but not for me, and I don't think they should be listed here as "rules".

Steven Crossin

07:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Steven Crossin - The rules, which I developed for my use, had been in userspace. Then another editor changed the formatting of the page. I could either have reverted the formatting changes as being within my own concern, or I could have ignored the changes, or I could take this as meaning that the user thought that the rules should be available to other mediators who chose to use them. I decided to move them into project space as being optionally available to other volunteers who want to use them, or to start with them and develop a different set of rules. If you think that the project shouldn't have shared optional rules, we can move them back to user space, but I thought that having them be shared and optional was handy. Robert McClenon (talk

) 20:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

According to the essay policy, only [e]ssays that the author does not want others to edit, or that contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace. The essay is clearly marked as an essay, and can be used by volunteers (like me and Robert) if they want to, but other volunteers may make a different choice. --MrClog (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Guess it's just the choice of name, really. I wonder at the moment how much we are accomplishing at DRN with rules and procedures - most cases here go abandoned or reach no meaningful resolution rather often, and from what I see a lot of posts are from newer, more inexperienced editors that aren't experienced with policy or how things work. How do we feel about guiding these editors to the applicable policies that they should look at and give them a guide on how to discuss the issue further (or the need to) - the DRN thread on Cryonics is an example of how I think we should handle some threads. Thoughts? (of course, this is what I'll be doing - it's just my style, and I'd prefer if I chose to do so on a thread that it's left to me to take this approach - I rarely comment on DRN anymore so if I do, I'll see the thread through).

Steven Crossin

15:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for a meditator to resign