Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard

Bot status update

I added the "Nededs attention" template to a thread because it was stale. The bot marked it as "NeedsAssist". I think is needs to be updated to "NeedsAttension" or something like that because the needs attention parameter no longer only means that a thread needs assistance. Who would I contact about this?

I figured it out. @Hasteur: Rider ranger47 ^Talk 11:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It also looks like the bot needs an update to support the hold status parameter. Rider ranger47 ^Talk 12:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Rider ranger47 The statuses and labels were arrived at by consensus discussion of the overall DRN volunteer community. Prior to this request, where is the consensus discussion agreeing to this change? Hasteur (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Further, the implementation of the statuses was last modified as the result of this discussion. Hasteur (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Use and misuse of the POV tag

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

---

My questions are ...

a) May an editor place a POV tag without giving reason?

b) If said editor gives reason but the reason is challenged, how many other editors' opinions and what passage of time are required before the POV tag may be removed?

c) Once removed, may said editor replace it and for how long or how often may s/he continue to keep replacing it?

d) Does the Wikipedia community recognise that simply placing a POV tag in an article skews the apparent value of any and all factual information therein, albeit correctly referenced?

I hope that wise people will answer my questions. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of everything that's good and holy, drop the stick. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Safety Behavior status

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

---

What attention is needed for this thread? Does it need help, or is it simply tagged because it will be closed in 24 hours unless the editors want it kept open? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Because it will be closed in 24 hours unless the editors want it open Rider ranger47 ^Talk 18:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Opening Case Where Not Sure of Issue

I opened discussion about Baltimore although I am not sure entirely what the issue is, and will let the editors explain what the issue is. If they can't explain what the content issue is, or if they comment on contributors, I will do a general close (or a fail if there are personal attacks). Comments on whether it is reasonable to expect the editors explain what the issue is? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe that it confuses things to open a case before all disputants have made opening statements in the summary sections. A case can't be opened for discussion until we know that there are participants who are willing to discuss: that's what the summary sections are for. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

As you can see, I did open the case, but if I don't get a clear statement from the other editor within 24 hours, I will general close it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and closed it for insufficient discussion. The filing editor only has one, albeit long, edit on the article talk page and the responding editor only has two, one of which was a comment on conduct not content. There's not been any real discussion at all. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure why this went here, since this was a simple NPOV issue and violation of the 3RR rule. But having read both of your comments, I will engage the other editor on the talk page and attempt to explain why I, and other editors, have reverted him (both this time and in the past). Onel5969 (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, neutral point of view is a content issue on which reasonable editors can disagree, and so can reasonably be discussed here. The 3RR rule is not a judgment issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

How Long Does Thread Wait for Moderator

How long does a thread stay in a "new" status waiting for a moderator until it is closed? I am thinking that the HFCS thread may wait for a moderator a long time unless someone is willing to moderate a discussion between a registered editor and an IP address. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no set time. The real question in that case is whether the other editor will respond. S/he received notice at 07:11, 16 May 2015‎ and edited a few hours later that same day. If s/he's not weighed in here by, say, 8:00 UTC on 19 May, I'd close the case as futile, especially if s/he's edited more in the interim. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

That is, the registered editor hasn't edited in the past two days. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The IP identified their account name and offered to participate, but the registered editor declined to participate, which was his privilege, so I had to close the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Another Tagging Dispute

Not another tagging dispute! Can someone review my comments on the Impalement tagging dispute and comment on them, as to whether tagging as such isn't really worth arguing about here? My own take is that the purpose of tagging is to call attention to articles that need improvement, and the purpose of moderated discussion is to improve articles, and that it is article content and not tags that should be discussed here. Have I missed something, or have some of the editors who come here to argue about tags missed something? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

There appears also to be a possible issue of article ownership involving taking an article to Good Article or Featured Article status, and that some editors seem to think that once they have promoted an article, that should preclude lesser editors from messing with it, but that isn't the question that I am asking here. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the specific dispute (yet), but I think it's reasonable to discuss whether a tag is appropriate here, and it sounds like an impolitic value judgment to say that something "isn't really worth arguing about here". If it's important enough to the concerned editors for them to bring it here to begin with, then barring it being a trolling situation I think we should respect that the issue matters to them. Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, the reassessment process was improperly executed. Only registered editors may engage in an individual assessment, but the IP acknowledges that's what they did. DonIago (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Just as someone who looked through the article diffs and the talkpage a few times to understand the case being brought, it looks to me like the IP made some valid edits-- removed unsourced information, fixed the subheader formatting and made the whole thing read less like a grandiose essay prose-wise-- and those in opposition aren't really rejecting those edits on a constructive basis, even though the GAR wasn't done right. The way the IP framed the case was a little confusing-- made it seem like it was strictly something about the GA reassessment subpage itself-- but obviously there needs to be some friendlier tones taken around that content discussion in general. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 18:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

"Tag-bombing" is generally considered a contentious approach that doesn't give people a warm, fuzzy congenial attitude; it's often viewed as an attack. WP:TAGBOMB. IF there is a legit need to improve the article, best to either boldly {{sofixit}} or raise the issue at talk. Drive-by tag-bombers drive me freaking nuts, just speaking personally. Montanabw^(talk) 18:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

My original point is that the real issue should not be whether the article should be tagged (and I agree that drive-by tagging is problematic), but whether and how the article should be improved. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Upon perusing the sources and noticing that there are sources pointing to blogs in places (see references 34 and 52), I'll have to say a "yes, definitely" to the former. I'd be all for letting the DRN case run its course and seeing if the involved editors can come to an agreement and work collaboratively, but since none of us volunteers have picked up the DRN case yet, should being bold take precedence? BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 19:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

So it looks like the IP wants to keep the DRN case open and set up an account, so I'd be game for picking up the case if/when the other parties chime in. That is, if no one else planned to or had any objections to me picking it up? I'm literally the newest volunteer on DRN, so I'd completely understand the latter. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 23:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Personally I wish they'd settled for just going through the community reassessment process, but oh well. I'll try to keep an eye on the discussion and will let you know if I have any advice. Unfortunately my time's currently at a bit of a premium, but feel free to give me a poke if you want my eyes on something. DonIago (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Seems more like the tension is running down on its own anyway, so it remains to be seen if this will remain open much longer. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 15:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I invite any more experienced DRN moderators to scrutinize the way I questioned the parties in my most recent posting, as I did so with the intent of making sure everyone thinks long and hard about why they're disagreeing and is able to explain themselves as specifically and clearly as possible-- I worry that it may be at a risk of seeming like I'm not doing it neutrally, or too specifically or controlling of the discussion, or just plain wrong... So if it seems as such to anyone more experienced in the ways of DRN I'll retract it and try a different tack. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 23:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@BlusterBlaster: I think this may have gone stale, but I think what you did was generally appropriate, BB. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: While tagging disputes are distasteful and usually a total waste of time (as are most infobox disputes, most notably <shudder> musical genre disputes), they are content disputes and within the scope of this noticeboard and dispute resolution, generally. It would be best if you would not make proclamations of the scope of this noticeboard without either clearly stating that it's your personal opinion or discussing it here on the talk page before making the assertion on the main page. It's fine to have areas of dispute which you do not care to handle (I certainly have some), but the way to handle that is just to not become involved in the case. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Did one last ping to all parties on this one, and giving it two days before I close it as stale. Also, TransporterMan, I noticed that you moved that piece of conversation I hatted between the IP and I am One of Many in OccultZone's dispute summary, into IOM's dispute summary section, when IOM hasn't actually provided their own apparent dispute summary for the case... it just looks a little confusing to me since the IP's post comes first, and IOM only comments below it saying that it wasn't the right place to discuss it (I'm assuming they were referring to the IP commenting in OZ's dispute summary section). Would it be best for me to move that chunk down to the discussion section into a spot where it's most chronologically accurate, or am I splitting hairs and should leave it as it is? BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 17:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

My bad. I missed that there were two parties' posts in the hatted section. I've re-fixed it about as well as I think it can be fixed. Sometimes we just have to watch the timestamps. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Question that Robert McClenon and/or TransporterMan may be able to answer for me: the filing IP in the case asked me on my talkpage if I could wait five days or so and let them know specifically on their TP before I do anything to close the discussion or pass it on to another volunteer. I'd figure making sure parties are notified of moderator changes or discussions going stale are just the due process and would be done anyway, but is it unusual to honor a request by the filer for a wait-before-closure of that length? BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 14:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreeing to that, at least if it's for a good reason, shouldn't be a problem. (I don't consider IP editors' inability to have a watchlist to be a good reason, however, since they can correct that problem by just obtaining an account, but that's just my opinion.) But discussions of that kind of thing should generally be held in the case section here, not on your user talk page or, at the very least, the discussion should be mentioned and linked-to. I ordinarily try to avoid discussions about or related to the dispute anywhere other than in the case section, and especially on user talk pages, to avoid any possible appearance of off-case partisanship, favoritism, or other bias. Putting it here will also help prevent some other volunteer (or me) seeing that the case is stale and closing it without knowledge of that agreement. Also don't forget that once cases are 14 days old that they'll be automatically archived and, in effect, closed if any 24 hour period passes when there's not an edit to the case unless a volunteer adjusts the date in the "Do not archive until" case header. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you explain the difference between archived and closed? Because it seems contradictory to archive a case before closing it.96.52.0.249 (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Cases may be archived without being closed. I would imagine the most likely instance is stale cases, which may be archived without having ever been closed in the technical sense. As TM noted, cases that are 14 days old may be closed if there's no activity for 24 hours. This type of "closure" often occurs at WP:ANI, where no decision is reached but at the same time nobody weighs in on the discussion. DonIago (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

If I might clarify one thing: Cases more than 14 days old will automatically — that is, by a bot without human action — be archived if there is no edit within every 24 hour period or unless a volunteer changes the "Do not archive until" date in the case header (which ought to be done only if clear progress towards resolution, even if intermittent, is being made, and then only for a week or two at the most). Archiving doesn't close the case per se, it just moves it to an archive page where it is not supposed to be further modified. That's an effective close, even if it's not a formal one. Cases can be moved back from the archive to the active page, but in my opinion that (a) should only be done by the primary volunteer handling the case or the current DRN coordinator and (b) shouldn't be done at all unless there's a damned good reason to do so and a high likelihood of successful resolution. Cases that need more than 14 days to finish are not really within the scope and purpose of DRN, which was intended to be a lightweight form of dispute resolution with a weightiness somewhere between Third Opinion and Formal Mediation. That doesn't mean that cases which show some real possibility of successful resolution can't be kept here longer, but that should be the only situation in which that happens. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Le Sage's theory of gravitation

After looking a little more into this, it turns out to be even uglier than it seemed. Normally I would have thought that tendentious editing could be dealt with at Arbitration Enforcement under WP:ARBPS. (The theory is a seventeenth-century theory that has had no mainstream scientific support in the twentieth or twenty-first centuries.) However, in looking at it a little further, I saw that one editor had accused another of sockpuppetry, and the accused editor threatened to sue for malicious defamation. After closing the DRN thread, I reported the legal threat at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Social Democrats, USA

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

---

User:TransporterMan - The discussion of Social Democrats, USA has gotten out of control, with one of the participants expressing a lack of confidence in the moderator, and with discussion on the moderator's talk page. Either the discussion should be closed or failed, or another moderator should be found. I am willing to try to moderate, but I don't want to interfere with another moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Robert,

You should review the moderator's actions and consider whether a private email is warranted.

I have tried to incorporate Ramirez's edits, into the body, and recently I expanded the lede to reflect these expansions. 7 thousand characters, people.

There are two additional sources mentioned by Ramirez, both of which can be discussed at WP:RSN.

I see no outstanding issues, although again I request that the moderator and others strike their allegations about my alleged political biases, which are a bit much to take, particularly for anybody who bothers to look at the recent history of the article. Dame Etna (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on contributors, at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

From what I can see the DRN volunteer was attacked by a DRN participant and rather then supporting the overly aggressive participant by pushing the volunteer aside and taking over the case, we should be supporting our volunteers and working with them to improve the situation and their skills. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

A new moderator who tells a participant that the "burden of proof" is on them to show that their edits were not due to their politics should learn about Wikipedia policies. Dame Etna (talk) 06:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thread failed. The editors are likely to take it to ANI, but might do better to avoid ANI because of the boomerang principle. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry that I'm late to the party on this one, but I'm traveling in the real world and won't be back online regularly until at least Saturday and more likely Monday or Tuesday. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I would have to agree with both Keithbob and the original moderator, who I have no complaints about (if anything, they were overly generous). It seems tragic to put the blame on "the editors" overall, when it was one particular editor who was personally hostile to the moderator and refused to comply with his/her requests. We furthermore seems to be rewarding Dame Etna's active contempt for academic peer-reviewed sources. That's a terrible precedent that could open the door to all manner of political partisanship and pseudo-science on Wikipedia. GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

A comparison of our edits shows our respective respect for scholarship and care with sources. Dame Etna (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Just need to point out that the notice of closure on the thread purports to link to the dispute resolution guidelines, but actually links to the wrong page. Someone may wish to correct that at some point.

And Dame Etna, a comparison of our edits is exactly what I'm asking for.GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Common sense

A young user who has just been unblocked after 2 years may not be prepared to be a moderator. Dame Etna (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Great Job Volunteers/Disputresolutionmediators!

I just want to say that all of you are doing such a great job. You are using the archive templates to close off sections of prose that are not about content, and closing off sections of prose when people like me have improperly inserted responses. Keeps things organized. Keep up the great work!96.52.0.249 (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

NPS disambiguation

An unregistered editor made an entry requesting "intervention" about edits to NPS, a disambiguation page, which are being reverted by two editors. It appears that he is trying to change the formatting, which he probably should not do, and to add an entry. A DRN volunteer closed the request, appropriately, because the request was badly formatted and was not recognizable as a request for assistance with a content dispute. My first comment is that a request to resolve a content dispute about a disambiguation page would be within the scope of this noticeboard if there had been previous talk page discussion, which there was not. My second comment is that the closure was reasonable. My third comment is that the IP doesn't seem to want to learn how to edit collaborative, but just to be angry at not getting his way, and either will eventually learn or will be blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The main reason I closed it was that the IP was trying to frame the case as a behavioral dispute over a content dispute (particularly in the outcome desired, where he was specifically asking us to sanction the other party in the dispute); if the IP had done the request as a proper RSN I wouldn't have closed it right away, but I would have definitely explained the purpose of RSN and the likely necessity of changing their goal for the case. I thought of suggesting ANI in my hatting explanation, since it was a behavioral thing they wanted to address, but after investigating the situation further and seeing the plate of sour grapes they handed me after I hatted it, I figured it would not go anywhere except for the way of the distantly-baying digeridoos... and that's a hole they can dig for themselves if they want. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 15:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I hope that it was clear that I was concurring with BlusterBlaster's decision to close the case. Maybe the IP will learn to listen to advice. If not, not. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The only editor who is close to a conduct issue calling for sanctions is the IP for incivility. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Zeitgeist

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

---

Took the liberty of hatting some very unconstructive side-tracking and reminding everyone to calm down and talk content only. Is anyone on the volunteer aware of how Rider ranger47 has been doing activity-wise? I know that the Zeitgeist topic area is a hell of a prickly one; a close eye is going to have to be kept on the talk in that DRN or else it's going to fail pretty quick. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 17:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the thread is getting close to the edge of being failed for personal attacks. I see that you pinged the moderator. I suggest that the decision of whether to admonish further, to keep trying, or to fail be made by the moderator. I would suggest using the phrase "Comment on content, not on contributors", both by the moderator and by any other volunteers. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Its not going to get better. From the onset it was laced with personal attacks, a call to warn an editor etc and revolved around perceived bad acting/editing. The description of what was going on in the initial filing was focused on personality and not issues. The child abuse thing should have shut it down and I think that should have been removed when it was put there and I mean deleted. The article has a history of disruption. You saw the links to sites 'calling' members to Wikipedia to edit. I am hoping it sorts out on the talk page eventually but know the article is going to be problematic but there are a few neutral editors there. I suggest closing the attempt as failed because I do not think you have serious players in one camp. The issues they are thrashing were thrashed out before also with others and are documented in the talk page history of consensus. I think the issues of advocating things are just the members of Zeitgeist blowing off steam in a blog like fashion. I believe they will go around in circles only without cooperating or looking at past consensus. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

On behalf of all the volunteers, thank you! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Earl King Jr.: I can respect that it must be a highly difficult topic area to work in (as I've seen you've done so for a significant amount of time), and I understand that you've come to blows with people many a time for trying to sway the article in a promotional POV, but I wish to caution you about your use of polemics when it comes to confronting editors you believe are meatpuppets or biased Zeitgeist supporters. I'm using your dispute summary as context for this suggestion; you put forth a lot of theories as to how OIYM is a SPA affiliated with the TZM meatfarming calls, but at the end of the day, it's just conjecture based on circumstantial evidence that doesn't really serve to help your case in the content dispute. Instead, it reflects on you poorly from the standpoint of someone uninvolved with the conflict-- you come off as unreasonable even if your concerns are not, and you appear more willing to comment on contributors over content (while a hell of a hackneyed statement, it rings especially true here at DRN), which is further reinforced by the fact that you didn't really get into the meat of why the edits themselves were not acceptable. For example, it would have been really easy to say that the edits weren't acceptable because of WP:PRIMARY or WP:UNDUE since the content was sourced directly from a TZM site and indeed such detail does not fit into the scope of the article, and those concerns would have been perfectly reasonable to voice-- we DRN volunteers are supposed to base our judgments on content policy anyway. In short, I'd just recommend for the future that you try to word your concerns as calmly and as rooted in content policy as possible, as frustrating as POV editors can be.

Furthermore, regarding that poor choice of rhetoric I chastised OIYM for-- I can see how it could have been a personal attack and/or trying to bait you, and I can also see how it was being presented as a rhetorical/hypothetical statement to prove their point-- albeit one of very poor choice in the situation. As a neutral party overseeing the conflict to a small degree, I can only take it at its ambiguous face value and cast no aspersions on the one responsible, but you were very quick to rise to the bait if its intent indeed was to bait you, and honestly I don't think any reasonable person is going to look at that statement and think there's any legitimacy to linking you with pedophilia advocacy of all things. It was, at best, a poor choice of words and at worst, a very annoying and baseless attempt to bait/insult you and get the conversation sidetracked-- and at the latter, it appears to have succeeded. I get that it was a pretty unpleasant thing to suggest about you as a person, but it's best not to hang on too much to nasty things people say to you. I'm not trying to throw the book at you or anything, it's just an honest word of advice.

Anyhow... I've been thinking of taking over this case if Rider ranger47 is fine with it. They haven't really responded to anyone's attempts to touch base on DRN matters, and I don't know if they've just been gone all this time, or what is going on, really (granted, that may have changed in the couple of hours writing this between calls at work has taken me)... BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 20:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, I apologize for the hypothetical on pedophelia advocacy. And I look forward to the content discussion. OnlyInYourMindT 06:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Another development. OnlyInYourMind has gone against consensus, made a false edit summary on the article and explained his position here [1] this totally violates the spirit of trying to get this ironed out on the talk page and this page. The overwhelming consensus was and is for the information to be removed as advert promo and also that the article was pared down as it was assimilated into the film article series. Zeitgeist as a fringe theory idea and group should not have an information box courtesy of Wikipedia for their promotion. No one knows anything about the group beyond Facebook clicks and Youtube clicks as to members etc. Tendentiousness is apparent Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Insulting a volunteer is not helpful. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That is a very lackadaisical comment Robert. Did you get the gist of what I just said. The whole point of this dispute resolution has been violated by the person that started this. No one is doing anything on this dispute. No moderation, no commentary, now no nothing. So unless you have something to say please lay off the prime cliche of talking about content. Content is on the talk page and also on the project page. This is not happening in a vacuum. A real person just returned content that the dispute was about, contrary to consensus on the Zeitgeist film series page. That was the same person that brought the discussion to the project page. Finally, at the end of the day, (and no offense intended) the amount of effort spent in a dispute about an article about a moderately notable film producer and their moderately notable films is disproportionate to the impact they have made. Make sure the most important points, and only the most important points are in the merged article, get over it, and move on O.I.Y.M. There are far more important things to be done to ensure the overall quality and success of Wikipedia. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

We get it that some people would like to believe that Zeitgeist is just a sneeze in a hurricane. We get it, already. But let us consider: Youtube is only one outlet for the Zeitgiest films, but the Youtube keeps statistics. ZEITGEIST: THE MOVIE - 2007 (HD): 700,208 views. ZEITGEIST: ADDENDUM | 2008 (HD): 283,861 viewsZeitgeist: The Movie (2010): Views: 1,108,497. ZEITGEIST 2: ADDENDUM (FULL MOVIE!): 3,668,118 views. ZEITGEIST: MOVING FORWARD | OFFICIAL RELEASE | 2011: 22,962,481 views. ZEITGEIST 3 - MOVING FORWARD (FULL - 2011): 599,265 views. Source. And that is only the first few uploads in the list. The total, my friends, is greater than 10% of the entire adult population of the United States, and that is just youtube. I cannot find independent (or any) stats on DVD sales through TZM, Amazon, etc. But from the youtube numbers, we can discard the claim that Zeitgeist is only "moderately notable." It is not Avatar, but also, it did not go to the big screen or use big budget advertising. Zeitgeist has touched many times the number of people touched by EST. EST is dead, but look at the size of the page on EST, with a separate page on its founder, Werner Erhard.

Now for or against TZM, the history of Christianity has a lesson for all: You don't make something go away by suppressing it. As an additional witness, I call Falun Gong to the stand. Suppression of information is not only unworkable, it is against the Wiki philosophy. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 07:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Sfarney, I'll preface my observations by saying I am rooting this assertion solely on policy as is my responsibility as a DRN volunteer, and that I have less than 0.0001% of a dog's molecular structure in this fight as a whole-- additionally, if you want to discuss the content dispute it's best to keep it to the case discussion instead of the DRN talkpage.

WP can't use YouTube view counts as proof of a subject's notability, as Youtube is not in and of itself an independent source discussing the subject material, it is a primary source, and trying to use raw data directly from such a source to draw conclusions about the subject matter's percieved impact is original research and synthesis. On that note, there are people with tens of millions of views accrued on YT within months just by sitting themselves in front of a camera and squawking about murderous off-brand Chuck E. Cheese animatronics, so raw view count on YT is really not a good example to be using for how widespread TZM is anyway. You'd only be able to make an assertion like that in the article if a different, reliable source, one that is not linked to TZM in any way, were to make such an observation of its impact-- these are known as secondary and tertiary sources, depending on their degree of separation from the subject matter as is explained in the RS guideline page.

You also appear to be voicing a concern that Wikipedia's making an active effort to suppress or censor information about TZM and that you're trying to contend against that suppression. You're right about WP:NOTCENSORED, but there's a big difference between us omitting content that could be considered ideologically objectionable, which would not be acceptable for us to omit, and omitting content because it doesn't meet standards for reliable sourcing, neutrality and meeting consensus with other editors, which is just part of the process here. We're not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS about what is contained within Wikipedia, and neither should you be.

As for your comparison with the EST article and its founder's BLP, well... those look like they're having some recent content and NPOV disputes on their respective talkpages as well, so I can't say if they're the best examples for non-neutral content that WP "accepts", per se-- if you think there's an issue there, by all means go in and fix it. Moreover, it appears EST has been around for a lot longer and has had more people writing or talking about it in RSes, so of course there's going to be more content incoming on those articles. TZM as a subject matter is still less than 10-15 years old and hasn't had a lot of RS coverage, so naturally it'll be harder to write about.

Lastly, I'd like to follow the example of what Robert McClenon said both on the case and on the article TP-- continuing to argue and editwar while the DRN case is ongoing makes the point of a DRN completely moot. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 13:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

We have an editor here who calls people names every time he adds a comment to the dispute. And though he whines about a pretended affront, he never apologises for his own insults. That editor says over and over again how trivial Zeitgeist is, to the point that he wants to trim the entire content of three pages down to a single paragraph on one page. And he has taken severe steps in that direction, too. It is improper to let those lies and slanders stand uncontested. He's wrong about meat puppets, and he is wrong about the triviality of the subject, which he endlessly argues for whittling back to nothing. Is no one curious that an editor would hang around a subject that he so thoroughly abhors, editing text for the readers for whom he has zero respect? Doesn't that spark the least curiosity?

Let's not mistake my remarks on the numbers from youtube. I am not trying to use them in the article, and WP:OR doesn't apply to this DNR page. It applies no more to my remarks than to another editor's endless whining about the triviality of the subject generally and the sub-humananity of the readers of the subject in particular, which is POV that raises not a syllable of caution from the moderator. I also have no dog in this fight. I have never watched a single real of that Z series all the way through, and probably never will. But I have respect for all people and their interests, which is why I am here on the Wiki. And I expect and require the same from other editors. User:Sfarney User talk:Sfarney14:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Sfarney, I've already told Earl that he should steer his rationale away from polemical statements about other editors, and Robert is now ensuring the case proceeds in a structured manner where any commentary outside of content concern is discouraged-- whether or not he takes my advice is up to him, and that's all we at DRN can really do at this point. If you think EKJ's actions specifically are what merit further action in this whole rigmarole, I can only suggest going to WP:ANI, while keeping in mind your own actions will be under scrutiny just as much as his will be. Considering you're generally taking a very aggressive tone towards him, just in this post above as an example, it may not end in yours, his or anyone's favor as it is. And hey, you brought up YT numbers with one of a couple intents in mind that I can imagine: A, justifying notability of the subject matter at hand in the context of the content dispute, which I cautioned may not be a good idea for OR and SYN reasons, or B, trying to make a conversational point or convince those reading your statement about how big of a cultural impact Zeitgeist reportedly has, which is something I have zero opinion on, and is really not a discussion we should be having here anyway.

Anyhow, I'd recommend focusing your energy on contributing to the DRN case, and making sure you voice your concerns solely in the context of content issues. As Robert stipulated, conduct concerns can go to ANI. That's all I have to say about it, and all I'm probably going to say, from now on. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 16:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The edits weren't acceptable because of WP:PRIMARY or WP:UNDUE since the content was sourced directly from TZM site. The films are not particularly notable, sourcing is hard to come by in regard to Zeitgeist. The Movement deserves a couple of paragraphs in general terms minus promo/advert aspects in the reception center of the movie that the movement was announced in. Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

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

RfCs

I know it really doesn't matter when it comes down to it, but why do we mark RfCs as successes? This seems like a "we can't come to a compromise so we need to take it to a !vote", should we be considering that a success? Kharkiv07 (T) 13:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

If the parties agree to go to a RFC then that's arguably a resolution so far as DRN is concerned, but my personal preference is to just mark them as a general close (just as I did a couple of minutes ago). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Great Process, Great Work!

I've been speaking to the moderator of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Impalement#tagging, User:BlusterBlaster, and mentioned to him how great this forum is. I was ignorant of the "parliamentary procedure" of this forum but am enthused by such tactful procedure. Keep up the great work!96.52.0.249 (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Two Questions for TransporterMan

I have two questions for TransporterMan. First, what are your thoughts on how the Social Democrats, USA mess could have been handled better? Second, is it time to get another moderator for Zeitgeist (film series), or should the case be failed due to personal attacks, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I hope we don't have to fail the Zeitgeist dispute. Content disputes continue to persist on this article. I've been patiently and eagerly awaiting the moderated content discussion. OnlyInYourMindT 07:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Who the hell is transporter man and why are you posing this question here Robert? The case should never have been accepted as it was based on personal attack at its formation and continues that way. Stop it now. I am sick of wasting my time. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Let me answer Earl's question first: I'm the current volunteer DRN Coordinator and I've worked here at DRN since its beginning. I'm also fairly experienced in Wikipedia content dispute resolution, working not only here but also at Third Opinion and being a member of the Mediation Committee, where I'm the current Chairperson. Next, as to Social Democrats, frankly the single biggest problem was not closing the case when Dame Edna said, twice, that s/he would prefer for the discussion to continue at the article talk page. As for Zeitgeist, see below. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Zeitgeist case

In my opinion, I think we should take it that Rider ranger47 is taking a break from Wikipedia and that this case needs a new volunteer. Robert McClenon would you be willing to take it? If no one is willing to take it, it will be closed sometime after 14:30 UTC on May 29, 2015. Whoever takes it should evaluate if all current parties in discussion at the article talk page are listed and notify and add any parties who are needed, then should ask all the responding parties to commit to only discussing content, not motives, biases, conflicts of interest, skills, habits, competence, POV-pushing, puppetry, canvassing, or other conduct issues and require a signed affirmative response to that request. Once that's done a reevaluation should be made to see if there's enough parties left to actually forge a resolution and, if so, only then proceed, but with the admonition that if anyone violates their committment to avoid questions of conduct that the case will be closed. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)  Done I've taken the case. I am imposing a structured style of moderation (as I usually do). I am not optimistic of getting a resolution, but I will try. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Completely agree with this. As Wikipedia is not a democracy, content is determined by the strength of arguments, not strength of numbers. Refocus on content issues, trout anyone who brings up conduct issues, and move forward. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, are we permitted to reply to first statements? If so, where? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply to first statements in your own first-statement section, indicating that they are replies to first statements in the OP's section. I will make a slight exception to the rule that you comment on content, not on contributors, in that you may indicate whose statement you are replying to, but do not comment on the editor, only on their comments about the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Happy to work with you under those terms, Robert, but the section for discussion appears to be closed. Where now is the DRN conversation? Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Your section is not closed. It is open and empty on the project page. Some of the editors have posted comments in their sections. Edit your own section only. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

In that case, everyone named has entered a comment concerning the Zeigeist page, but it looks like we are doing it all over again?? Sorry, I an having trouble following this. If we are dealing with two questions, what is the difference between the two questions? Is the first one decided? If so, what is the decision? If not, why are we going onto a second question? Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Potential misuse of the discussion 'archive' template

I want to caution volunteers about the potential and unintended misuse of this {{archivetop}} {{archivebottom}} template. I've been visiting this noticeboard everyday for 18 months and I've never almost seen that template used in DRN cases or on this talk page. Now that template is being used frequently and I'm concerned about the effect is having on participants and inexperienced editors and volunteers. We should be aware that the application of that template is a unilateral,somewhat off putting, and many times, unnecessary action. To illustrate my point:

• The 'archive' method of closing a discussion is a formal closure usually reserved for formal settings like WP:ANI and WP:RFC.
• In those cases archive closures are preferably performed by an Admin. However, non-Admins may use the template if they are 1) completely uninvolved 2) fully understand the WP:CONSENSUS guideline and 3) feel sure that a formal closure is necessary and will go unchallenged.
• I don't think it is at all appropriate to use the archive template in the middle of a DRN case and I would strongly suggest that volunteers discontinue that practice and use the {{collapsetop}} and {{collapsebottom}} template instead. The collapse template hides inappropriate comments rather than highlighting them with a purple color via the archive template.
• Here on the DRN talk page it has not been our tradition to put an archive template on discussion threads. If a discussion has concluded than a simple {{done}} or {{resolved}} template will suffice. There may be some occasions when a formal closure is needed, such as when non-DRN volunteers are sniping at each other and won't leave page even after being told to take their discussion elsewhere. Or if there is a protracted and contentious discussion amongst DRN volunteers. In these cases a completely uninvolved party can make a formal close and in my opinion should use the {{discussiontop}} and {{discussionbottom}} template [2] (rather than the archive template) as it is less formal, less off putting and more appropriate for this forum.
• These are my thoughts and suggestions. For more information please see WP:CLOSE. Thanks for your time and consideration. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Mea culpa, Keithbob. I've used it a couple of times since I started doing DRN and TransporterMan has already coached me on properly using closing templates within cases, so that won't happen again. I don't know if my closure of the Social Democrats discussion on the talkpage was unwarranted, as I hadn't been involved with the discussion at all and it seemed to be heading towards PA territory which warranted a shutdown in my view, but I'll certainly remove it if it was improper and I'll refrain from doing so in the future. Would I still be considered involved, as a fellow DRN volunteer, in cases like that even if I hadn't participated in the discussion? BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 19:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I fully concur with all Keithbob has said about the DRN main page, and mostly concur about the DRN talk page. I will say that I find {{archive top}} and {{discussion top}} both preferable to {{collapse top}} simply because they don't hide anything. Hiding stuff comes very close to deleting it and that's ordinarily frowned upon (though on the main page even deletion may be permitted under the Control of Mediation policy). A middle alternative on the main page is to use strikeout, which makes the point quite firmly but neither hides nor deletes anything and has the advantage of being able to address specific pieces of text rather than entire posts or paragraphs. Here on the talk page, I agree that we need to exercise prudence, but when it is needed I prefer archive top over discussion top simply because discussion top always (?) closes its header with "A summary of the conclusions reached follows." followed by whatever comes after the reason= parameter. That's more suited for a consensus closure than a we're-cutting-this-off kind of closure (as I last did above). Of course, the best solution (and the one I probably should have used above) was just to tell everyone to stop. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Good points T-man. Bluster, I think uninvolved means that you at least did not participate in the discussion. Being a DRN volunteer doesn't automatically make one involved but if we've had prior involvement on the issue being discussed or with the participants involved then better to let someone else do it.

Also, I think there has been a tendency lately for volunteers to discuss the content and nature of the cases here on this page. Especially before they've been opened. That draws the case participants into this talk page and creates havoc. I think if we need coaching or advice about a specific case we'd do best to approach the coordinator or another experienced volunteer on their user talk page and get advice or mentoring rather than discussing the details or nature of the case here and creating counterproductive drama.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} should be avoided. They are "strange" because they do not close discussion, but they hide it. As a result, it is permitted to enter additional comments inside, although those comments will only be seen by opening the box or via watchlist. It is sometimes necessary to use the {{hat}} and {{hab}} templates, in order to mark comments that should never have been entered (complaints about contributors). Are we still allowed to hat, or should we strike? The advantage to hat is that it shows why the comments have been hidden. (If the hat is used repeatedly, it may be getting to be time to fail the thread, but that is another matter.) I think that the {{archivetop}} and {{archivebottom}} are being used as milder versions of hat, to suppress further discussion without suppressing the boxed comments. If this is incorrect, then it should perhaps be avoided. I haven't used {{discussion top}} and {{discussion bottom}}. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

As to discussion of cases here, I have posted below that the volunteers should have a mechanism, such as a mailing list, for asking for advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

After having done some research, I'm having second thoughts about collapsing, striking, or deleting conduct comments from the DRN main page. I think that we're okay, but it's not as clear-cut as I've thought it to be in the past. Here's my train of thought for you to consider:

• Our authority comes from this section of the Mediation Policy, which says that a mediator can deal with the mediation page in the same way as his/her user talk page.
• The User Pages Guideline says that it's acceptable for a user to remove other user's comments from his/her talk page.
• But the Talk Page Guidelines

• First say (in the lede) that they're applicable to noticeboards as well as talk pages, "When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply."
• Second say this:

Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request. Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. If you make anything more than minor changes it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note such as "[possible libel removed by ~~~~]". Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: Personal talk page cleanup: See the section § User talk pages for more details. Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons, banning, or anti-promotional policies Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived. Off-topic posts: If a discussion goes off-topic (per the above subsection § How to use article talk pages), editors may hide it using the templates {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} or similar templates—these templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors. This normally stops the off-topic discussion, while allowing people to read it by pressing the "show" link. At times, it may make sense to move off-topic posts to a more appropriate talk page. It is still common to simply delete gibberish, comments or discussion about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article), test edits, and harmful or prohibited material as described above. Another form of refactoring is to move a thread of entirely personal commentary between two editors to the talk page of the editor who started the off-topic discussion. Your idea of what is off topic may be at variance with what others think is off topic; be sure to err on the side of caution. The template {{rf}} can be used as well as to denote the original source page of the content.

In the past I've thought that it was okay to collapse, strike, or delete conduct comments because that was permissible for all content on your user talk page. I saw a recent discussion — I'm afraid I don't recall where it was — in which an editor was being taken to task for removing sections of other user's posts on his or her user talk page. The point was being made that while it's acceptable to remove entire posts that removing part of a post falls under the prohibition against edits which change the meaning of others' talk page posts even on your own talk page. (The user was arguing that his edits didn't change the meaning: the edits in question were boilerplate warnings — not of the kind which cannot be removed (of which there are a few) — and s/he was just trimming out some of the inapplicable boilerplate. Much of the problem was that the editor was perceived as being a scofflaw, disputatious, or low-competence editor and these edits, though no one said it outright, were pretty clearly being seen as a manifestation of his obstreperousness. I don't know how that finally came out, but some fairly experienced and ordinarily-neutral editors were making the point, at least by implication, that any removal of less than all of a talk page post changes its meaning in violation of the rule quoted above.)

While I think that my prior theory about control of one's own user pages may not be as good as I thought it was, I think that there are two theories which can support strikeouts, collapses, and deletions:

• First, that comments about conduct are prohibited materials at this noticeboard. Our page rules prohibit discussion of conduct (and I've just changed the page header to make clear that it's an actual prohibition). That argument is somewhat vulnerable, I fear, to an argument under CONLIMITED that we don't have the right to change the effect of the Talk Page Guidelines by our local rules, though I also think that there are counterarguments to that.
• Second, and much better, is that such conduct comments are off-topic posts at this noticeboard. Both noticeboards and articles have the right to determine their own scope and our topic here is to facilitate and resolve questions of content, only, and we've clearly said that discussion of conduct will play no part in that.

Finally, having said that, I think that I need to spend some more time on the question of whether we can strike out, collapse, or delete less than entire posts, especially if that action changes the meaning of the post. The safe thing to do, however, is to only do it to entire posts. In light of our mission, however, I'm afraid that could often be too extreme: We want to keep the "good stuff" a disputant says that's about content and not throw that baby out with the bathwater by deleting a post because it has conduct mentioned in it along with content. I'm wondering if an exception to the Talk Page Guidelines needs to be built into the Mediation policy, but I need to look more at the entire problem.

This much I'm sure of: If a volunteer does strike out, collapse, or delete material, whether an entire post or just part and gets reverted, it's generally a bad idea to re-revert. Taking other action, such as threatening to resign from the case unless the party either consents to the removal or unless they agree to stop the conduct allegations altogether is a much better remedy and one that won't get DRN in front of AN or ANI over this issue.

Whew, there's a TLDR post if I've ever written one. Comments from anyone intrepid enough to read through that steaming pile of stuff? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

PS: On further reflection, I've realized that I have at least in part failed to see the forest for the trees. If you're going to delete, and probably strike out or collapse, an entire post then the treat-it-like-your-user-talk-page rule is clearly sufficient to justify that, because you can do that on your user talk page without any justification other than you want it gone. It's only when you do less than an entire post that you may need other authority and, as I've noted above, the no-changes-in-meaning rule may or may not trump the other arguments I made above. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Timeframes, a perspective from a filer

I am the filer of Talk:Impalement#tagging and as the discussion is nearing its end, I have my personal experience to share with you as suggestions.

My goal is to get the dispute resolved, but it was unclear to me when the dispute would end. I want to thank the moderator for the great work that he has put into the case, but I have a few suggestions.

The moderator, User:BlusterBlaster, stated: "Discussion appears to have gone stale, so I will post one last round of DRN talkpage notifications to request input from the other parties before I do a general close in a day or two." (16:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)).

This did happen, and discussion resumed. In this case, discussion stops and starts in spurts. For more active participants, this may be too much hassle to constantly check whether new messages have been added or not.

The suggestion I want to make is to clearly state a time period after the last comment by involved parties that a file will become stale. I suggest 5 days. This can be added to the top of the "boilerplate".96.52.0.249 (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

"Holds" of that nature are, in theory, fine and it's been a regular practice here to do just that before closing a case due to staleness (though 5 days is too long; 24-72 hours is more common), but I don't think that should be engraved into stone by becoming part of our "rules." That's partly because our archiving bot won't allow it if that hold happens near the end of our ordinary 14-day listing period (about which I hope to say more, above) without the volunteer manipulating the "Do not archive until" case header. Requiring that would create a general exception to that listing period and I think that's a bad idea in principle and, worse, creates a need for technical knowledge about the inner workings of this board that we simply cannot rely on all volunteers having. Still, I'd like to thank you for the suggestion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Timeframes and moderators

Maybe we need to add something to the guidelines for moderators about availability. I would suggest that it say, first, that a moderator should not accept a case unless he or she expects to be available every 24 hours for about the next ten days, and, second, a moderator should notify the coordinator if he or she expects to be unavailable during a case so that a replacement moderator can be found. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Good point:  Done see here rather here (post-spelling-correction). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Communication Between Volunteers

Is there or can there be some way for volunteer moderators to communicate with other volunteer moderators other than on this talk page, such as a mailing list? Sometimes one of us wants the feedback or advice of other volunteers. As we have seen recently, asking for that advice on this talk page gets comments from parties to the case also (because the parties, quite properly, have watchlisted WP:DRN, and that inherently watchlists WT:DRN. If we don't have a mailing list, then maybe we should have one. An alternative would be a project subpage with its own talk page that would be poorly publicized, but maybe a mailing list would work better. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Economic history of Chile: Discussion should take place here or in the article talk page?

Hi,

I am back from my obliged wikiholiday and ...

1. In my opinion the project page is the place where the discussion should take place. User Dentren means [3] the discusion should be in the article talk page. Where should we discuss?.
2. Can you please open the dispute Economic History of Chile and tell Dentren and me where the discussion should take place?.
3. Would you please reinsert the {{POV-section}}{{undue-section}}{{fringe-section}} tags in the section "Salpetre Republic" of the article. The discussion hasn't begun and Dentren has already deleted the tags. Of course, I don't agree the current version manipulated by Dentren.

Thanks in advance, --Keysanger (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It appears that Dentren is mistaken. When a moderator has opened discussion about an article, the discussion takes place at this dispute resolution noticeboard under control of the moderator. As you can see, several other content disputes are currently being discussed at this dispute resolution noticeboard. I will leave it up to the moderator to handle discussion of the tags. The purpose of discussion, however, is to improve the article so that tags are no longer in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)