Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard

Open DRN cases

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Autism	In Progress	Oolong (t)	15 days, 19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 17 hours	Urselius (t)	2 hours
Sri Lankan Vellalar	In Progress	Kautilyapundit (t)	14 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 10 hours	Kautilyapundit (t)	1 days, 16 hours
Imran Khan	New	SheriffIsInTown (t)	9 days, 19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 14 hours	SheriffIsInTown (t)	2 days, 16 hours
Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)	In Progress	Abo Yemen (t)	4 days, 15 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 1 hours	Javext (t)	10 hours
List of major crimes in Singapore (2020-present)	Closed	203.78.15.149 (t)	1 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	20 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 09:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

_

_

Talk:Medical uses_of_silver

Could Talk:Medical uses_of_silver please be de-archived? I was sick for one week and it got archived during that time. I have informed the volunteer that I was sick. Ryanspir (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll look at it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Done; it's just a robot archiver. But it will strike again... User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that he actually meant that the DRN discussion had been archived and he would like for the DRN discussion to be restored. I would note that he, was, in fact off of WP from his "sick notice" to CarrieVS, the volunteer handling the case, on February 4 (and that was actully his only edit since January 30) through and including February 11, the date the DRN thread was archived, returning on February 12. On the other hand, Carrie was clearly trying to get the case closed at the time Ryan became ill and, as was discussed above, cases older than a couple of weeks here are generally subject to being closed so they can move on to other DR (usually either formal mediation or Request for Comments, though there are other possibilities as well) if there is not substantial and continuous progress towards resolution at that point in time. I'm going to drop a talkback to this discussion on Carrie's talk page and I think we ought to leave it up to her to decide whether or not to restore the DRN discussion. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

If a party has a bona fide reason for dropping out of a DRN case (and their absence had a significant impact on the case) then I think the DRN process should bend over backwards to accomodate them. Possible paths forward include (a) the party should be able to re-start a new case, and include the prior DRN case by reference; or (b) revive the old case by copying it into DRN and give it a new initial time stamp. My point is: We want the DRN process to be friendly, inviting, and humane. So we should work with parties to work-around real-life events. --Noleander (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

At the point we had gotten to when Ryanspir first asked for the discussion to be de-archived, I did not want to do so - and indeed, was very close to simply saying drop it. Essentially, Ryan wants a change to the article, but there is rough consensus to keep it as it is. So far the other participants have heard his arguments and unanimously disagreed with almost everything. They agreed to one point, and a compromise was proposed, which Ryan has since rejected. Ryan continues to ask for the same thing (the removal of any mention of Quackwatch from the article), to an extent that is on the point of stonewalling if indeed it hasn't passed it already. And, to be perfectly honest, the other participants are fed up with the issue [ill-advised remark removed CarrieVS (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)] .

I have offered Ryan my help in a final chance to try and come to an agreement, via talk pages, with the understanding that if we don't make progress or there is any more repeating of old arguments, that will be that. He is still rejecting proposed compromises, and I no longer believe there is any chance that he will agree to anything other than total acceptance of his request. On the other hand, he has now made an attempt to address the points raised by the other editors and to come up with fresh arguments. I still have little expectation that any of the other participants will agree, but it is at least a step in the right direction.

At this point, I wouldn't outright reject reopening the case if others think there is any point, but I wouldn't have much optimism, and to try and keep this going too much longer just wouldn't be fair to the other participants. If it were to be reopened, I would want it to be under the same understanding as the talk page discussion: any return to old ground, or other poor behaviour, and it's closed, for good this time. CarrieVS (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with CarrieVS on this. I would rather we didn't reopen a case over this, but simple allow the filing to be re-made. The difference is, we as volunteers should not be stretching of procedures quite this much when the best real option is for a refiling. But I support whatever the consensus is here.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

We aren't talking about re-opening, for it wasn't closed. We are talking about de-archiving due to I was sick and it got archived automatically by a bot at that time. I was sick for one week.

As CarrieVS said, a fresh argument has been introduced by me and if it won't bring to consensus in the near future, we will close it. Ryanspir (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI I have commented on the relevance of the Leeds in vitro study to Quackwatch's characterization of ingested colloidal silver here. Zad68 14:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Zad68, here is not a discussion about the matter of a new argument, I think you have accidently mistaken the relevant talk page. (And it's not a vitro study, it's a vivo study). Ryanspir (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The press release directly from Leeds says "lab tests", agree this should be continued at article Talk page. Zad68 15:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be getting on ok on talk:Medical uses of silver now. Why don't we see how it goes there for the time being? CarrieVS (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

So I propose to de-archive it and complete, for the reason of archiving was a technical one and it was as a result me being sick. Ryanspir (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

What are the outstanding issues remaining that haven't been discussed already on Talk:Medical uses of silver and in the (archived) discussion here? This noticeboard isn't intended to offer an opportunity to indefinitely filibuster. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that answers that. While I was over here, posting the above question, Ryanspir was adding a big chunk of stuff to Talk:Medical uses of silver#"Cancer research from the University of Leeds" is not relevant to Quackwatch and colloidal silver. Essentially, he wants us to incorporate his idiosyncratic reinterpretation of a press release about a scientific paper (a primary publication, rather than a review article; dealing with cells in culture and not human or even animal trials; dealing with specific, well-characterized organometallic silver complexes and not the mystery-meat of internet-based magic colloidal silver remedies). It is apparent that he hasn't read or understood the paper itself, and he seems hopelessly bent on finding imaginary hidden meanings in the press release. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

This DRN talk page is not the venue to further argue the dispute. It appears that the DRN volunteer community has, as I suggested, left this to CarrieVS's discretion to decide whether or not to reopen. Her decision at this point, based upon what is going on now, is not to do so and to allow discussion to continue on the article talk page. The disputants are free, if they care to do so, to try to move on to some other form of dispute resolution if they do not care for that decision, but the archived listing is apparently indefinitely closed at this point unless Carrie cares to restore it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

"This DRN talk page is not the venue to further argue the dispute." - That is the thing that I have said to Zad previously. But this "group" of editors is so overly zealous they are ready to fight for their point of view on every possible talk page. AGF? Forget it. Anyway, this editor is not even a part of the dispute resolution.

If I remember right, CarrieVS told me to open the discussion here. The reason was that she couldn't find anywhere how it's possible to de-archive. So all this was just about the technical issues. I would propose simply to ask an admin to de-archive it as it was suggested by Lukeno94.

I see the issue very simple: I became sick, it became archived by a bot. Everything else is irrelevant for the purpose of the de-archiving IMO. Ryanspir (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't the technical issues - it would be a simple copy and paste job, I said I didn't know if it was allowed, and also that I didn't think there was any point. And following the discussion on talk:Medical uses of silver, it's even more obvious that there isn't.

If it was only that you'd been ill, I would certainly have de-archived it. But you got ill just when I was on the point of closing as 'failed'. And although we since made a little progress on talk pages, that's now stalled. Your new argument has been discussed on the article talk page, and not only did you seem to manage well enough away from the DRN, it's now very clear that not one other editor agrees with you or is willing to agree to your request (you may recall that I said I didn't think they would).

If we had de-archived the case, and that discussion had taken place here instead of there, I would close it now. This was going to be your final shot, and it hasn't worked. You are not going to get a consensus for this. It's time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. CarrieVS (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I would be supportive of re-opening the archived case for the sole purpose of having it "officially closed" with a final disposition of "successfully resolved: clearly no consensus for the removal of the references to Quackwatch". This would be helpful with the likely upcoming WP:ANI discussion about Ryan's tendentious editing. Zad68 15:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I have removed "a threat" by Zad. Ryanspir (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I have restored my original comment. Please do not edit others' talk page comments unless they meet the criteria specified at WP:TPO, this was not one of them. Zad68 15:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I have considered it as a personal attack by threatening. Per wiki policies any editor can remove a personal attack from any talk page. But since you are insisting, I'll let someone among the editors or admins here to render a decision on that. My position is:

a) It's a personal attack by threatening.

b) It is irrelevant and shouldn't be on DRN talk page. Thank you. Ryanspir (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand you feel that way, however: a) It was a comment about a likely consequence of your behavior, not you personally, and so it was not a personal attack, and b) It is directly relevant to our DRN activity - I mentioned it to Carrie as a reason in support of my request to de-archive the case. Zad68 16:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice try. But if you would just mention it as tedious editing, maybe, just maybe that would pass. But you have mentioned reporting on ANI. That is what I'm talking about. So let other editors and admins decide about it. Ryanspir (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

And this whole sentence looks out of place and insulting to me. Also, I don't think you are honest here, untill recently you were against de-archiving the RSN. You have just changed your position 180 degrees and immediately used this change as a reason for insulting? Ryanspir (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree with you that it'd be best if we let admins review the activity here and take whatever action they feel is appropriate. Zad68 16:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Adding: regarding your statement untill recently you were against de-archiving the RSN. You have just changed your position 180 degrees - actually I don't remember ever stating that I was against de-archiving the case, do you have a diff to where I stated that? Zad68 17:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd be fine with de-archiving it to close it. CarrieVS (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes please, thanks. Zad68 15:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Can anyone tell me whether or not I ought to delete it from the archive as well?

Great, I weighed in. You should probably actively notify the other participants, who might not be following this. And if I were you I'd remove it from the archive page because then you'll end up with two of them after the dearchived copy gets archived, and that'll be confusing. Zad68 16:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think you may choose not to delete the archived version, but mention the situation in the second archived version. Ryanspir (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Help with astronomy case

The Indian astronomy case is not coming to a resolution. If a volunteer has any fresh ideas, that would be appreciated. --Noleander (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

What happens when a volunteer turns out to be a sockpuppet?

User:Eng.Bandara, volunteer for the Syrian civil war thread, has been confirmed by CheckUser as a sock of User:Distributor108. What happens now? Do we start the mediation over again? Do we just pick up where the sock left off—or would that just be affording legitimacy to the sock? Are there NPOV concerns given the fact that the sockmaster was blocked for disruptive editing and a battleground mentality? Send help. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that if all of the parties are happy with the mediation so far, it should be continued. If, on the other hand, any one of them calls the past mediation efforts into question on the grounds that they have been tainted by this volunteer, then the process should be restarted from a mutually agreeable point (or from the very beginning if there is no agreement). —Psychonaut (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

If the Sock was of someone involved in the dispute it must be closed and restarted fresh. If the sock had nothing to do with the dispute and was just a volunteer here, it would be up to the involved participants.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Civility closures

I'd like to propose a procedure for use when there is unacceptable incivility in a listing:

Step 1: Volunteer posts this message in the discussion:

STOP ALL DISCUSSION! This discussion is suspended until civility matters are resolved. Incivility, conduct allegations, allegations of bias, conflict of interest, or sockpuppetry, and personal attacks are not permitted at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. In keeping with DRN procedures, all participants in this discussion are notified that this listing will be closed 48 hours after the date of this warning unless all participants edit their own comments to remove all references to or discussion of other editors. Do not edit other editor's comments. If you wish to comment or complain about another editor's conduct, bias, conflict of interest, or personal attacks, do so at the administrator's noticeboard, sockpuppet investigations, the conflict of interest noticeboard, file a user request for comments, or take appropriate action at some other conduct-related noticeboard, but do not do so here. This discussion is suspended until a regular DRN volunteer states that it may continue. Once the current problems have been removed, additional conduct allegations or incivility may cause this listing to be closed without additional notice. [signature and timestamp]

Syntax: Use exactly in the following form:

• {{subst:template}}

Step 2: 48 hours later, the same or a different volunteer adjudges whether or not the incivility has been adequately removed and either gives extra time (with some pointed directions, probably), closes the request, or approves the discussion to continue. The template should remain in place for the ongoing warning in the final paragraph.

Whaddauthink? Too much? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

For those of you who are new, I am a dispute resolution volunteer who went inactive for a few months to work on a hot project. I am back now.

I think the above helps to address what I see as a major reason why some DR cases fail to resolve the dispute; they simply turn an argument on a talk page into two arguments on a talk page and a DRN page, the latter with one extra participant. In my opinion, what makes for a successful dispute resolution is putting the disputants in a more structured environment where they have to do things differently. Major components of that are having to wait for responses and having to discuss article content without discussing user conduct. To my way of thinking, the DR volunteer should use a firm but gentle hand to lead to discussion towards a resolution that both sides can accept.

The other side of the coin is making it perfectly clear that the DR volunteer has zero power over anyone outside of the DRN case; by design we have no authority, we cannot block or sanction, we can only advise as to what the disputants should or should not do outside of DRN and nobody has to participate in a DRN case. For those who do choose to participate, however, it needs to be made clear that we have behavioral guidelines that were designed to help them to resolve the dispute, and that we will enforce those guidelines, but only within DRN. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Very often disputes do arise due to a combination of a variety of those factors. I say this because I am currently a party to just such a dispute. Focusing too closely on some narrow definition of the dispute would then result in our missing the root of that dispute. Here is the dispute I am referring to: WP:ANI#Repeated_removal_of_cited_lede. So, obviously we need a middle ground---maybe a different observer-volunteer can flag it? Chaipau (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems a bit strident. Also, I object to the statement "... is suspended until a regular DRN volunteer states that it may continue." because DRN volunteers have no special power or authority (it's been claimed repeatedly that the volunteer list exists primarily to help the DRN bot do its job). For instance, consider the situation where two volunteers helping, and one wants to close the case due to incivility but the other feels the problem is resolved & wants to forge ahead. In the cases where the incivility is continuing, the DRN volunteer(s) can simply ignore the case ... it will get closed down quickly enough if no volunteers want to get involved. How about something like:

STOP INCIVILITY AND DISCUSSIONS OF BEHAVIOR! Incivility, discussions of editor behavior, personal attacks, and allegations of bias, conflict of interest, or sockpuppetry are not permitted at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. In keeping with DRN procedures, all participants in this discussion are notified that no further discussion of behavior or conduct will be permitted. All editors are requested to remove comments they have posted which are incivil. If you wish to comment about another editor's behavior, do so at the administrator's noticeboard, sockpuppet investigations, conflict of interest noticeboard, or user request for comments. If incivility continues, DRN volunteers will refrain from assisting with the case, and the case will be closed without additional notice. [signature and timestamp]

That seems a bit briefer and gives a more accurate reflection of DRN volunteers' powers (or lack thereof). --Noleander (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I like the first one better and don't agree with Noleander about any sort of "power". This isn't about power at all. Volunteers are the ones that open and close cases and are also the ones that may enforce policies and guidelines at DR/N. The first one may be a tad long but it can be edited for brevity. Let me take a shot at it.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

... and what if every time I saw one of these notices, I (or any other volunteer) posted underneath "It is okay to continue now, just keep it civil"? Are we saying DRN will adopt some kind of admin-like wheel-war rules? --Noleander (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

grain-of-salt noob-commentator-warning here

I love the idea. I would agree with Noleander's concerns. I also wonder about the mechanics of asking people to remove their comments. The concern, as i see it, is that simply striking the comments might not be enough to settle things down. But if, say, a DRN case is used as evidence in a behavior dispute, removal of the comments might present someone who is not adhering to WP:GIANTDICK to be construed as someone more reasonable than they are. I dont think i would be concerned about this if the history of the dispute were available through the history tab, but right now archived disputes have no history. i might have more to say in a few days once i have more time.

also, it's quite long. maybe put a shorter version for the page and then the longer version on active disputants' pages? -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 21:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Query - This seems like a solution in search of a problem. Was there some particular DRN case that was a disaster that gave rise to this proposed notice? --Noleander (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Multiple EC's @UseTheCommandLine: The history is always in the history of the main page even if the thread itself is moved to the archive. I debated back and forth between striking and removing; both have their strengths and weaknesses. I ended up with removal because with a strikeout, the allegations are still there grating on everyone even though there's a line through them, but that's a close call. @Noleander: Dammit, Nol, I am a bit strident ;-). I think that we, as a project, can by consensus put such restrictions or requirements on keeping a thread open or not as we care to do or not do. If we can do that, then we can also set rules on suspending it and lifting the suspension, though I get your point about special powers and perhaps the "regular" ought to have been dropped from my version. When I first started thinking about this, it was in the context of adding a closing reason to the "rules" which allows any volunteer to close a discussion if there is excessive incivility, even if there are also genuine content issues also present. I decided that was too much and put too much authority into the hands of individual volunteers to just close threads without warning. So I created a warning system while still allowing the shutdown eventually if the disputants can't get their act together. How about my version without the suspension language, but keeping in the 48-hour closure warning? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Supplement @Nol: The current "Hungarian people" listing is the one that got me thinking about this. I came real close to just closing it and telling them that if they wanted to list it they needed to relist it without the personal allegations. I defaulted to a warning. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

@TM: Yes, your suggestion is good: "How about my version without the suspension language, but keeping in the 48-hour closure warning? " - that is sort of what I was trying to get at with my revised version. --Noleander (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I've said it before and i will say it again. it is not that we have no special power, it is that we have as much power as anyone else...inluding admin. Administrators are not special and they have no special rights, just special tools. Some that allow them to block. We can all hand out sanctions by simply beginning a thread and !voting on it. Seriously. This is just another tool, and i think it important to mention that anyone can remove uncivil comments and off topic chat (although I prefer to hat or collapse) DR/N has volunteers that are specific listed mediaters and we should be attempting to give the m (us) the right tools, the right guides and as much support as we can. But...I am not going to edit the notice. I think Transportation man may have some good points and he should be allowed the ability to create and use tools like anyone else. I appreciate the fact that he brought this here for discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It's about that point in the day where my computer locks up and throws me offline (gotta get that fixed ... too darn many Firefox plugins) but let me quickly say that I see our community here at DRN and at other DR forums as a model of how this boat is supposed to float. (That's one reason, Nol, that I'm not too much concerned about volunteer EW's: when that happens we all need to go do origami or basket weaving, but give up DR'ing and probably give up WP altogether. If we can't work together, who can?) I'll float another draft, hopefully tomorrow, and let y'all whack at it. Thanks for all the good comments. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I just feel better by backing away from this one and letting you and Noleander work it out. I am sure between the two of you or any others that this can be worked out.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

New draft:

Incivility, conduct allegations, allegations of bias, conflict of interest, or sockpuppetry, and personal attacks are not permitted at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. In keeping with DRN procedures, all participants in this discussion are notified that this listing will be closed 48 hours after the date of this warning unless all participants edit their own comments to remove all references to or discussion of other editors. Do not edit other editor's comments. Once the current problems have been removed, additional conduct allegations or incivility may cause this listing to be closed without additional notice. Comments or complaints about another editor's conduct, bias, conflict of interest, or personal attacks, may be made at the administrator's noticeboard, sockpuppet investigations, or the conflict of interest noticeboard or via a request for comments/user but may not be made here. [signature and timestamp]

Better? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes ... much better! Of course, I can't resist the temptation to make it pithier:

The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard does not permit incivility or discussion of other editors' conduct. All participants in this discussion are notified that this listing will be closed 48 hours after the date of this warning unless all participants edit their own comments to remove all discussion of other editors. Do not edit other editors' comments. Comments about another editor's conduct can be made in another forum as described in the Dispute Resolution process. [signature and timestamp]

--Noleander (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea. Discussion doesn't get anywhere while people are venting/bitching about each other's behaviour, and I've found that a lot of people either ignore a reminder to be civil and not discuss conduct, or start arguing about whether they have or not. It's hard to ignore a big red box, and it won't get lost in a sea of comments. I think it shouldn't be a go-to, though; I'd want the instructions to make clear that it shouldn't be used unless incivility continues after a non-template warning (I'm sure someone can phrase it better than that). CarrieVS (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I would hope that most volunteers would first give parties a gentle reminder that behavior-related discussions are not permitted within DRN. It is only if parties ignore that guidance and continue the belligerence that a BIG RED BOX should be posted. --Noleander (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Just thought of something: If there were a DRN case with, say, 4 parties, and one of them was obnoxious, and If this big warning were posted in the case, that party could deliberately terminate the case by simply posting some incivil comments after the warning. It seems odd to give a single party the power to terminate the case. Just thinking out loud. --Noleander (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thinking outloud is a good way to get others to understand your concerns. I think an important part of using this template would be establishing when to use it. I would think this should be reserved for when the entire group falls into the trap of incivility, not just when one person loses it. That is when any editor should feel free to remove the comments or collapse as Codename Lisa mentions below. If everyone is going off topic with uncivil remarks then there really is not actaul discussion, just a huge fight and is when it would be appropriate in my view to use it.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Can't others remove his comments or request removal by oversight? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

How about saying something like 'editors who do not comply may be asked to leave or the case may be closed' and leave it to the volunteer's discretion? CarrieVS (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Nol's rewrite is fine. I also agree that this is for widespread incivility not for just one editor, or one or two out of a large group, acting up and usually (but not always) needs to be a last resort. Strange as it may seem from my advancement of this proposal, I'm ordinarily a fairly strong advocate of simply ignoring minor-to-moderate incivility with the thought that curing the underlying content dispute will cure the conduct disputes. This is for when things get (or start, as happened over the last couple of days with the Hungarian people listing) out of hand. And Nol is also correct that we should have some concern that overuse of this could allow someone to manipulate the process. But that can also happen, of course, without making oneself look so much like a tool by simply refusing to participate and continuing to churn the dispute at the article talk page, so I don't think that it's likely. I'll take Nol's version and move it into templatespace if everyone thinks we're done. @CarrieVS: Forcing individual editors to leave is probably going to wreck any chance of the DR succeeding and the threat of doing so puts the volunteer in the position of squabbling with individual disputants and thus diminishing the volunteer's neutrality. I think that any action or threat needs to be directed to everyone involved, not pointed at any one person for that reason, but that's just my thought. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably right. I was just going by the 'things to remember' in the guide for participants. CarrieVS (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Amadscientist. Collective leverage can work wonders, but it must be applied strategically in order to be effective and to deter weaponization. How about discretionary degrees of intervention like this:

 

The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard does not tolerate incivility or permit discussion of other editors' conduct. All editors are requested to remove unacceptable comments that they, and only they, have posted. If disruption continues, volunteers may refrain from further assisting with this case, and it may be closed without additional notice. Please refer to the conduct resolution process for further information on user disputes. [signature and timestamp]

 

This discussion is suspended pending review. The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard does not tolerate incivility or permit discussion of other editors' conduct. All participants are requested to remove unacceptable comments that they, and only they, have posted within 72 hours of this notification. If any participants are not cooperative, this listing will otherwise be closed. Please refer to the conduct resolution process for further information on user disputes. [signature and timestamp]

 

These also needs to be a set of accompanying user talk templates if we want already-frustrated users to actually come back and modify their comments.   — C M B J   09:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I dunno. Two new warning boxes seems like a big leap forward in bureaucracy. Maybe we should start with one and see how it goes ... maybe the orange one above. Also, I repeat my concerns about the statement "Accordingly, this thread is suspended until such time that a volunteer states that it may continue" - because the consensus is that persons listed in the DRN volunteer list do not have any special powers, yet that statement implies that they do have a special power. --Noleander (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the closure clause to reflect your thoughts. I do still believe that having two templates is valuable, though, because it allows for a proportional approach.   — C M B J   15:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Wrong template format

The current template uses the ambox which is restricted for article messages. The correct template for this is Template:Warning (we can still use the stop hand image):

Just so we don't get screamed at.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Need another volunteer to take United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject DR/N filing

I am afraid I will be taking a short Wikibreak. My heart is just not in this right now and it would be unfair to leave without asking another to handle the case please.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to help out with that case. --Noleander (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I went through too much withdrawl. I'm back and will help out where I can with this.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppets starting multiple dispute resolution cases

The cases "Lists of tropical cyclone names", "List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes", "Francesca Hogi" and "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Kira" were probably created by the same user with multiple IPs and sockpuppet accounts. The first two at least seem appropriate, but the others look like trolling; can these last two just be closed or removed? Peter James (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. If sockpuppetry is involved the listings will probably be closed, but the puppetry will need to be established via a SPI investigation before anything is done here. If you suspect sockpuppetry, please file a report at SPI, but do not discuss it here except to report back if that investigation does determine that sockpuppetry is involved. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the second case about the power rangers article; the first one - which I closed for no discussion - appears to be by the same person (same group of IPs as tropical cyclone names and Hurricane Kira). — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarrieVS (talk • contribs) 12:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Please do not speculate on the identities of possible sockpuppets. The rules are pretty clear; either file a case at WP:SPI or stay silent. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Which rules are you referring to ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Can the "Power Rangers" case be closed as it has been discovered that a banned user's sockpuppet started it?—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

DRN case: Microsoft Office 2013

Hi.

I see two volunteers having visited the topic and even one explicitly said he'd take it, but the case has no mediator after eight days. (Am I counting right? NVM.) Could someone please take the topic?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The case is six days old, according to the table at the top. That's rather longer a case would (or should) usually be left, but it hasn't exactly been left. It's only been three days since Zaminamina said (s)he'd take the case, and sometimes it takes a volunteer a while to get read and digest all the information. Three days is perhaps a little on the long side not to have given you any updates or say when (s)he hopes to be ready to start the discussion, but, speaking for myself, not long enough that I'd want to jump in and take over without speaking to her. I'll drop Zaminamina a note on her talk page and ask if she still intends to help with your case. CarrieVS (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks. I don't know why I forgot that I can contact her on her talk page. (Must be a psychological thing...) But six days? Let's see: It is filed on 24 Feb, 11:00am. So, 1:24, 2:25, 3:26, 4:27, 5:28, 6:1 Mar, 7:2 Mar 04:55pm. Hmm... that's seven days, not six. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, I was going by what it said in the table. CarrieVS (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean to cause you any discomfort, I wasn't criticizing you. Yes, since you said "table", naturally my objection should be targeted to software. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It's ok. :) CarrieVS (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello again.

Another question: I see that the status of this case is now changed to NeedAssist, although mediator has joined in. Is it because the template has mistakenly specified NerdFighter as the mediator?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

No; the bot doesn't register a specific person as mediator on a case, it looks for comments by anyone on the list of volunteers. However, it's not required to put your name on the list to volunteer, and Zaminamina hasn't. So the status will stay at NeedAssist (unless a volunteer who is on the list joins in), but it's not a problem. The NeedAssist status is only to inform volunteers that a case might need help. Case status can be changed manually, but there's not really any point as the bot will change it back every time it checks the page. CarrieVS (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

@Lisa; the case will get set to "Needs Assist" status by a bot when either (a) the case has no DRN volunteer after a few days; or (b) if the case is more than several days old (even if there is a volunteer). There is no special significance to the Needs Assist: the idea is that the pink color might attract editors willing to help resolve the case. --Noleander (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I wonder if I could ask a third question. How is the prospects of escalating this issue to WP:MedCom? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Apple Computer's 1997 Financial Rescue

One of the disputants has requested that another volunteer handle this case, so I am withdrawing. If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

This looks like it may be back on track with Guy as mediator.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Volunteer is requested to mediate topic under discussion.

Pdunbarny (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Does Godwin's law apply here? :)

I just opened a dispute about Adolph Hitler. This is a topic which can become heated, so right from the start I am inviting any other interested volunteers to jump in and assist if needed. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)