User Page User Talk Contribs E-mail Subpages Awards Mediation 11:49 am, 27 October 2025 AEST Talk Archives Stuff to do

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.

	Yayy
	A late Christmas wonder.~ ToBeFree (talk)22:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, really happy to be back! I’ve checked out DRN and I think I’ve got my work cut out for me. That’s why I’m back!StevenCrossin^{Help resolve disputes!}22:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today I learned you created the page back then! Whoa.~ ToBeFree (talk)22:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm the father of DRN and a few other DR processes! But that's why I'm back!StevenCrossin^{Help resolve disputes!}23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that since a long time Welcome back Steven! —usernamekiran(talk)01:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joining everyone above: welcome back!arcticocean ■22:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steven Crossin, I just wanted to let you know that I haveadded theautopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in thenew pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have beenrequested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload ofnew page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevantWikiProject templates,stub tags,categories, andincoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such asRater andStubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia'score content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become anew page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing!charlotte^👸♥17:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the status of theAutism case from 'closed' to 'hold' I would like it to continue to show in the list of open DRN cases as long as it is being worked in another place. I was concerned that it would be archived if it was listed as a closed case. We don't want people to think that the case has been resolved. This will be the same way as I handled the Italian political parties case and the Indian language case, which both went on for months.Robert McClenon (talk)04:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, no worries. I disagree that keeping it active at DRN is required if discussion at the noticeboard has ceased, and that referral to another DR forum (including a sub-page of DRN) is a valid reason to close the noticeboard discussion. That said, fine to keep it that way for now - I think it's also about removing some of the clutter from the DRN table of contents (with 9 sections, it's become rather unwieldy) so I've adjusted the discussion slightly for ease of navigation. Let me know if you have any concerns. Cheers,StevenCrossin^{Help resolve disputes!}04:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for changing the headings to bold face to simplify the table of contents.Robert McClenon (talk)23:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worriesRobert.I've proposed a change to the form here to implement that sectioning, but also to cut the initial statement down to 1000 characters. Let me know if you have any concerns?StevenCrossin^{Help resolve disputes!}02:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Awarded for the non trivial task of closing the RM over atTimor-Leste. That was no small amount of consensus building you had to work through.TiggerJay (talk)06:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it did take a while but was a discussion that had to be reviewed and closed by someone! I appreciate it!StevenCrossin^{Help resolve disputes!}06:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding to my comments about dispute resolution. I have one question that may be about emphasis. I said that I thought I mostly agreed with you, and tried to restate what I thought you had said. You didn't say whether you agreed with what I said, except that you seemed to be restating your position. So, one more time: Are we in agreement that there should be two dispute resolution mechanisms, one for simple disputes, and one for disputes that are either more complex or more stubborn?

If so, I have one concern or comment at this time about any changes to DRN, including to its header and its template and its banners. I will be very uneasy in any way restricting or scaling back DRN until MedCab or something similar is also operational. I have been largely ignoring any remaining language about DRN being lightweight, because it has to be heavyweight also until there is a separate heavyweight medium, such as MedCab. So I think it is important that we first restart MedCab or something similar, before we review the charter of DRN. That is my thought at this time. More comments will follow, either here, or with a ping on my talk page.Robert McClenon (talk)07:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that we need two tracks of dispute resolution. As I was the one that closed MedCab, I think I'm almost prepared to IAR and reopen it, but I may take it to the Village Pump (idea lab). But for me to do so, I'd need some sort of consensus that reopening MedCab would result in making DRN more lightweight (because otherwise, the rationale for reopening MedCab sort of goes out the window if DRN stays as is). I know that there's been some comments over the years that DRN is now a bit too rigid (and I understand why that structure is in place, because DRN is currently a one stop shop). Happy to work with you on timelines for that, I'm pretty flexible.StevenCrossin^{Help resolve disputes!}07:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have started discussion atVillage Pump (proposals). I don't plan to comment much further at this talk page or my talk page, because I will be following up at Village Pump to explain the idea of splitting content dispute resolution into two forums.Robert McClenon (talk)02:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at the proposed changes to the DRN header within 48 hours, but almost certainly not within 12 hours. Today I have the task of reading Scripture to am assembly about a reading of Scripture to an assembly, and also will be watchingAmerican football. I am thinking about the reduction in the length of the statement, which may be a way of identifying disputes that are not lightweight, although it may be a way of limiting users who use too many words.Robert McClenon (talk)16:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Robert, still awaiting your review on the DRN header? Can you do so please?StevenCrossin^{Help resolve disputes!}08:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've always found it weird that inTemplate:Dispute-resolution, mediation seems to be something that exists but nobody ever thought about. I also think the emphasis on resolving conduct rather than resolving content leaves us with a major gap. Thank you for creating DRN, it is a major win for content.Kenneth Kho (talk)21:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It was an idea many years ago and while it can use some improvements, it’s a good idea that does work!StevenCrossin^{Help resolve disputes!}06:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not questioning your judgement, but it is a good idea to leave the closure of controversial discussions to admins. --Altenmann>talk07:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for coming to my talk page to discuss this with me, however I have to disagree with your reversion of my closure here, as an outright reversion of a close is usually performed only by an administrator. I often frequent requested moves and close many on a regular basis, andWP:RM/AI mentions that any uninvolved editor may gauge consensus (or lack thereof) and close a requested move, and that discussing a closure you disagree with is the correct way, and then going to a move review if that’s not successful. In this instance, I’m happy to relist the conversation for further discussion in lieu of a no consensus closure. Thanks.StevenCrossin^{Help resolve disputes!}08:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please take a look at theTaylor Lorenz dispute? I was trying to handle it, but it looks to me as though user Delectopierre doesn't like or trust user Awshort, and I don't want to try to handle it. If you don't want to handle it, it can be closed because there are also conduct disputes between these users.Robert McClenon (talk)22:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, sure I can do that.StevenCrossin^{Help resolve disputes!}20:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you ready to take up this dispute?Robert McClenon (talk)05:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to give a heads up that the ANI discussion closed a while back, and that there seemed to be a satisfactory explanation given to Delecto at the NPOV noticeboard regarding the main topic from the DRN they wanted to discuss. Since my question was regarding a different section, I didn't know if it would make more sense to close out the previous discussion and start a new one or try to give a more concise statement about my issues with it.

Honestly I think both Delecto and I are eager to be out of each other's hair but I wanted to check in with you and@Robert McClenon: for what the next steps should be. There is an discussion on RSN regarding if one of the sources in that article can be considered reliable, but I don't think that affects this?

Awshort (talk)23:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD has been closed as Delete. Can you please wrap up the DRN thread? I think that the dispute can be closed as moot, but I have not been following that dispute, so that is for you to decide and do.Robert McClenon (talk)04:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, I've been busy a little at work so haven't been on WP much. I've gone ahead and closed that off. Cheers,StevenCrossin^{Help resolve disputes!}08:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute has been on hold for about three weeks, although it isn't marked as on hold. What is its status?Robert McClenon (talk)04:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just joined theDRN and came here looking for similar feedback. I see "Charyapada" DRN is still listed as "new." At what point do you push things forward and mark it as "open"? I would have thought we'd do that as soon as we engage in the discussion. TIA for the direction.Penguino35 (talk)14:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steven,

I’m seeking assistance with a content dispute on the Kathleen Kennedy (producer) article. Attempts to expand her Star Wars section with neutral, well-sourced information about her creative and managerial role have been repeatedly blocked by an editor with a long history of gatekeeping on this topic. The article currently only mentions her appointment and contract renewals, leaving out key aspects of her leadership.

When I proposed a balanced expansion, the editor dismissed everything except content that portrayed her positively. Similar concerns about bias and obstruction have been raised for years on the talk page.

Given the contentious history, I’m considering dispute resolution via the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or Requests for Comment and would appreciate your guidance. Would you be able to assist or advise on the best approach?Thanks,

Daniel CaspiDaniel Caspi (talk)09:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steven, just following up to see if you might have any advice or suggestions. Thanks again for your time and help.Daniel Caspi (talk)09:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]