Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:37, 27 February 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dispute resolution noticeboard page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33Auto-archiving period: 14 days

	Dispute Resolution (inactive)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Dispute Resolution, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dispute ResolutionWikipedia:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionTemplate:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionDispute Resolution

view · edit Frequently asked questions This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: Dispute Resolution (inactive) This page is within the scope of WikiProject Dispute Resolution, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dispute ResolutionWikipedia:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionTemplate:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionDispute Resolution This FAQ page may be developed or changed over time. Q1. Why was I invited to the discussion? You have been listed by a filing editor in hopes that the discussion of content can be continued here with the guidance of a volunteer. You do not have to participate but are encouraged to. Q2. Are resolutions enforceable? The dispute resolution noticeboard is informal, and resolutions formed here are neither binding nor enforceable. DR/N relies on all involved parties to self-enforce the agreed upon resolution. Should the dispute continue with all or some involved parties ignoring the resolutions that they participated in, this may be considered as part of the next step of the DR process. Editors who continue a dispute after accepting a resolution may be perceived as disruptive by refusing to engage collaboratively on consensus. Q3. If resolutions are not binding, why should I participate? Misplaced Pages only works when editors collaborate to form a consensus. Discussion is as important in the editing process as editing itself. While participation is not a requirement at DR/N, refusing participation can be perceived as a refusal to collaborate, and is not conducive to consensus-building. Q4. How long does a case last? It depends on the dispute, but ideally no more than a week. Volunteers will attempt to resolve disputes as fast and as thoroughly as possible. A case can remain opened for longer than a week, if the participants are nearing a compromise. Q5. Why are the volunteers not responding to my case? The noticeboard has to handle a large number of cases, despite having only a small pool of volunteers. Some volunteer editors will not open a case if they are uncomfortable with or unfamiliar with the subject matter. The bot will flag the case after a set period of time if a volunteer's attention is still required. Q6. Why was I asked to step back from a discussion? Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked step back from the discussion if warnings for disruptive behavior go unheeded. This is to keep the discussions civil and focused on the goal or resolution and discourage further disputes from arising out of the DR/N filing. Generally an editor will recieve a warning first and will be given the opportunity to contribute in a civil and respectful manner. Should warnings not be heeded, comments may be collapsed and/or personal attacks removed entirely in some cases after warnings as well. Q7. What is the role of a volunteer? Volunteers are editors that assist in resolving disputes as neutral third parties. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority on the noticeboard or on Misplaced Pages. Q8. Are there any requirements for volunteering? No. All editors on Misplaced Pages are invited and encouraged to participate. The noticeboard is always looking for new volunteers. Q9. Why are disputes over an editor's conduct not allowed? Other boards are better equipped to handle behavioral disputes. Conduct disputes should be directed to formal arbitration in extreme cases, or If you need immediate assistance or intervention from administration, use the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard. Q10. Why was my case closed? The noticeboard is only for content disputes that have been extensively discussed. Conduct disputes, disputes with no discussion, and disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums, should not be brought to DRN. However, don't be afraid to post a request, if it's outside of the noticeboard's scope, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. Q11. Why is prior discussion required? The dispute resolution noticeboard is not a substitution for talk pages. Editors must attempt to resolve the dispute between themselves before seeking outside help as part of a collaborative effort to form consensus. Q12. How extensive should the prior discussion be? While time may not be a deciding factor, discussions that have only gone on for a day, and/or consist of only one or two responses, do not qualify as extensive. Edit summaries are not considered discussions. While we accept disputes with discussions on individual user talkpages, discussions that focus on editor conduct or that only involve a minority of the dispute's participants may not qualify as extensive. It is always recommended that discussions on content take place on the relevant article talkpage to involve as many editors as possible to form a local consensus for the subject. Sometimes editors will request discussion on their own talkpage in order not to disrupt the flow of other discussions on the subjects talkpage when a dispute is between only a small group or just two contributors. Q13. The other editor refuses to discuss. What should I do? Repeatedly refusing to discuss changes, especially controversial ones, is considered a conduct issue and should be brought to the administrator's noticeboard. Although Misplaced Pages supports bold editing, refusing to discuss can be problematic and is discouraged by Misplaced Pages's editing policy.

Open DRN cases

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 18:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dispute resolution noticeboard page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33Auto-archiving period: 14 days

_

_

Archived without closing

It looks like Cinema of Andhra Pradesh and Mail Online got archived without being officially closed. Does something need to be done to fix that somehow? Dreamyshade (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the system is set up that way. Cases stay open for 14 days after they're filed, but then get archived if there is no action in the case for 24 hours. The idea is that if cases are here longer than that and aren't continuously progressing then they ought to move on to another venue. I will say, however, that Steven Zhang's original vision for this noticeboard (feel free to correct me, Steve, if I'm wrong) was that this was going to be more of a clearinghouse to send DR cases to other venues except for lightweight disputes which could be quickly and easily resolved here. It has arguably morphed into something quite different from that. Having said that, however, I'm fine with the way it works now, though I wonder if we might shouldn't provide a little more notice of the way it is going to work. Tip: if you're working on a case and want to extend it's lifetime, change the date in the hidden DoNotArchiveUntil line, but don't do it unless you're making steady progress and don't extend it too far. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, you're right, that was my original idea :) Steven Zhang 09:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Missing template in Archive 61?

If you check Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 61 you may notice that the last two cases are not reachable by clicking on the links in the TOC. For example Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 61#Royal College, Colombo does not take you to the case. It looks like the last two cases got swallowed into the collapse box for a previous case, the one for Catherine of Alexandria. I looked to see if there was a closing or opening template missing, but could not resolve the mystery. I hope that someone who is familiar with the DRN templates might have a moment to look at this. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't a missing template, it was an extra one. Catherine of Alexandria had two 'DRN archive top' templates, so the second one used up the 'bottom' template and the first swallowed everything under it. I've fixed it: I hope that's alright, as I know archives usually shouldn't be edited, but every time something new is added it would swallow that too, and it's kinda confusing. CarrieVS (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good enough reason for editing an archive. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2013 (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 .

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.

Volunteers please sign your closing

David Bergman (journalist) was closed as resolved but has no signature on the closing.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Whoops. Will remember in future. CarrieVS (talk) 09:32, 19 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.

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 discusion 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.

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? -- #_ 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)

• Dispute resolution noticeboard