Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:57, 8 December 2017

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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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, 33: 14 days

Dispute Resolution (inactive)

This article 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 articles

This page was nominated for deletion on March 30, 2013. The result of the discussion was withdrawn without prejudice.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

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?

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.

Q8. Are there any requirements for volunteering?

No. All editors on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia supports bold editing, refusing to discuss can be problematic and is discouraged by Wikipedia's editing policy.

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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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, 33: 14 days

Closing of Talk:2017 FIA_Formula_One_World_Championship#Order_of_Toro_Rosso_drivers

As one of the editors involved in the dispute regarding Talk:2017 FIA_Formula_One_World_Championship#Order_of_Toro_Rosso_drivers, it has come to my attention that Robert McClenon closed the dispute on it at the DRN. While he has multiple reasons for doing this, I would like to bring into question his first reason for closing the discussion, which was that:

"The filing editor was notified by a coordinator that they should notify the other participants in this dispute on their user talk pages, and that this thread would be considered abandoned if that was not done in a timely manner. This thread has been abandoned by failure to notify the other participants."

To my understanding, this is in fact inaccurate, as the filing editor, Wikipediaeditperson, left notifications on each participants talk page, with the only exception being their own talk page, within the time frame given by the coordinator. If this reason for closure is indeed inaccurate, I would like to seek clarification regarding whether the other reasons were enough for closure in and of themselves. Thank you. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was automatically archived by a bot due to the no-archive date being passed without having the no-archive date removed or edited by a volunteer and no activity within 24 hours. I suggest that editors go back to the article talk page and use a Request for Comments. Other options are also available. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nyheter Idag

This case was archived by a bot while it was being moderated. This happens if the do-not-archive date is passed (without being edited by a volunteer) and there is no activity in 24 hours. If the parties and the moderator want to continue discussion, the case can be un-archived and moved back to the noticeboard. Alternatively, the parties should resume discussion at the article talk page, or use a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed newsletter

Apparently, Kostas20142 created a newsletter really without discussing it with other volunteers as to 1) whether or not it is even needed given the few volunteers there are, 2) which content should be included if it is even wanted, and 3) whether or not people wanted to even be added to it. Therefore, I am opening this discussion so that it can be hashed out. I am on the verge of proposing some major DRN reform suggestions and will be done with that sometime in December; however, I feel this should be discussed sooner rather than later.

Volunteers - How often will this be included? To what extent should a newsletter go out in order to catch these changes? How is the volunteer list not enough to track this?
Awards - I find the awards distracting from the actual goal of the DRN and believe they are rather useless.
Preceding coordinator - This should say succeeding coordinator.
Ongoing discussions - Potentially helpful, but it would probably be easier to house the majority of "internal" DRN discussions in one place (such as this page) rather than having multiple discussion pages.

So at this time, I don't really find the "newsletter" useful or needed. I also find the lack of discussion problematic. Nihlus 02:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihlus: To be honest, I'd myself sent a newsletter when I was coordinator (although I discussed it with TransporterMan who ultimately sent it). I'm guessing a newsletter is just a way for a DRN coordinator to inform the volunteers of any major changes that took place (because some volunteers, including myself, may not be actively watching the talk page). I don't think we need to spend time on discussing a protocol for that. One of the duties of the DRN coordinator is to rather keep all volunteers informed of any major changes which a newsletter might serve to do. I'll comment on other points you raised later. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yashovardhan Dhanania: Something like this should really be discussed to some extent. I have no problem having one as long as there is support for one; however, I do not see that currently. Nihlus 07:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive volunteers

These volunteers will be removed from the DRN volunteer list in the coming days due to never handling a single case:

~~Dinah Kirkland (talk · contribs) (Last case: N/A)~~
- 90.1% of total edits to user-space. Seriously ?! Winged Blades^Godric 09:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed per Special:Diff/813084112. Nihlus 22:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~TerraCodes (talk · contribs) (Last case: N/A)~~ removed
~~Zapeterset (talk · contribs) (Last case: N/A)~~ removed

These volunteers will be removed from the DRN volunteer list in the coming days due to not handling a case within the last 6 months:

~~Atsme (talk · contribs) (Last case: 21 February 2017)~~ removed

This is in spite of the rollcall as merely responding to a rollcall is not enough. We expect volunteers to volunteer. If you are removed, feel free to add yourself back once you have participated. This is so that participants have a viable list of individuals to reach out to in case they have a question about the DRN process. Thank you. Nihlus 07:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And what good does that do for DR/N? I come by and check and the times I have come by, the cases were already taken. Do you really believe that removing editors who actually do respond to roll call is helpful to the process? ^{Atsme📞📧} 07:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In a sense,I support it since listing without participation does inflate the numbers without any real purpose, bloats the list of volunteers (three of whom likely haven't got the slightest of clue about DRN) and precisely leads to the sorts of thoughts that are often echoed at NPR:--We have hundreds of reviewers but how the backlog is so phenomenally growing?. That being said, if you clearly object to any such removal, I think we couldn't do much. But, ultimately our objective is to improve participation and it would be helpful if you could chime in here amongst your other impressive works! Regards:) Winged Blades^Godric 07:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: I'm not sure I believe that. I have intentionally left cases untouched in order to give others the chance to participate, so there have been ample chances for you to join in. Additionally, if I had done the roll call, I would not have listed your name or the names of the other three for the same exact reason. The first task assigned to the coordinator is "Maintain the list of DRN volunteers", which is what I am doing here. If you want to stay on the list, then feel free to join in on the open case we have right now. Nihlus 08:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed my name. ^{Atsme📞📧} 08:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I signed up to do admin work here, but I could never find anything? --Terra ^(talk) 08:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TerraCodes: What do you mean by "admin" work? Like clerking? Nihlus 08:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe? Not really sure since I could never find anything about it. --Terra ^(talk) 09:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TerraCodes:--about what? On a sidenote, do you know what the exact roles/duties of a DRN volunteer are? And, since you mention I also do admin work on Dispute resolution noticeboard. on your user page, there is almost nil admin work to be done over here. Winged Blades^Godric 09:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TerraCodes: regarding "clerking", some tasks that need to be carried out is checking whether all parties involved have been notified, whether there has been adequate discussion, declining cases that cannot be handled by DRN (for example conduct disputes) and directing parties to other dispute resolution procedures when appropriate. --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A simple but useful administrative task, as Kostas20142 says, is to check when new cases are filed and whether they have been filed correctly, whether there has been adequate discussion, and whether there has been proper notice. I would suggest that inexperienced volunteers not try closing cases that have been improperly filed or otherwise need closing, but leave that to more experienced volunteers. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All volunteers listed above have been removed. Nihlus 23:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

White Privilege

I would appreciate any comments from other volunteers as to whether my closure of the White privilege discussion request was appropriate and diplomatic. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse it. I was planning on closing it myself but got tied up all day. Nihlus 03:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is to discuss the DRN page and process, not to pursue dispute resolution. - TransporterMan (TALK) 04:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appropriate for me to make further comments here? If so, I have two arguments:

1) I maintain the argument that the consensus against creating a critique section invalidates the criticism in the proposed section itself is false. The subject for debate in the RfC was whether to create a separate section covering criticism. This was rejected and I accept this. However, the individual edits were not debated separately, but rather amalgamated into a wider discussion around the benefits of separate criticisms sections.

Its clear that some editors gave reasons to objecting to some edits, but not others, whereas some objected without giving detailed reasons which could be debated E,g "it looks like a reddit rant" and the comments are a "carcrash". Taken as a whole it is difficult to disentangle those editors who object to a criticism section per se, and those who object to the specific edits. Therefore I have taken the approach of presenting bite-sized edits for debate outside of a criticism section.

2) I have subsequently made edits based on RS which were not originally part of the RfC, so the argument that the RfC invalidates those edits cannot stand, and these should be judged on their merits. A rejected Rfc on a criticism section cannot invalidate subsequent edits which fall outside of the RfC. Keith Johnston (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Johnston (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With two of the three involved editors unwilling to participate, the close was obviously proper. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe diplomacy wasn't useful, given that the filing editor is forum shopping and took my meta-question as an opportunity to re-argue the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template order

@TransporterMan and Robert McClenon: Just letting you two know that the filing editor should go into the archive for now. Until the filing editor template can be fixed, it is clashing with the other templates as seen here.

{{DR case status|closed}}
{{DRN archive top|reason=This is already at [[Special:Permalink/813949435#Disruptive editing by Chilicheese22|ANI]]. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes [[User:Nihlus|<span style="padding:2px 2px;font-variant:small-caps;color:#000;letter-spacing:-0.5px">'''Nihlus'''</span>]] 02:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}}
{{drn filing editor|Panam2014|22:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)}}

There don't seem to be any issues on much smaller monitors, but it should be done like this until it's fixed (if ever). Thanks. Nihlus 03:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been clashing that way since the beginning of DRN, but putting the archive tag before the filing editor prevents easy identification of the filing editor, especially after the case rolls off to the archive. Frankly, however, I don't see it being a big deal one way or the other, except that it's been done one particular way from the beginning. That doesn't mean it can't change, of course. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that I understand what the issue is. Maybe it is very important, but if so I have missed what it is. Can someone explain, please? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: It's in the link I provided above. Nihlus 08:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've still missed it. If it is important, please explain it to me. If it isn't important, I am willing to have it explained anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, it's whether the {{DRN archive top}} line goes before or after the {{drn filing editor}} line. If it goes before then the filing editor information at the top of the archive goes into the collapsed part of the archive and cannot be seen without expanding the archive. If it goes after then the filing editor information can be seen above the collapsed part of the archive, but the closing reason and the filing editor information sometimes visually overlap in a jumbley kind of way, at least on some monitors. Compare the last two cases in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_145 where the volunteer did it one one way and then did it the other way. I couldn't find a overlap example, though I've seen them in the past (but I also didn't look very hard). I reminded everyone of the proper placement (after the filing editor tag) here in 2014 and the volunteer page says here that it should go after, but the volunteer page also implies a little later on the page that it should go before, though I'd argue that to be a simple oversight. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I have always put the DRN archive template before the filing editor template because I have in the past always replaced the Do Not Archive Until template with the DRN archive template. I did it the other way this most recent time. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Hallyday

I will comment that I have very little patience with editors who yell "Vandalism" in order to "win" a content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you did a pretty good job with the closing statement there. Especially the last line

. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 03:32, 8 December 2017 edit Robert McClenon (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers 194,684 edits →‎Template order: comment ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:57, 8 December 2017 edit undo Yashovardhan Dhanania (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 5,165 edits →‎Johnny Hallyday: cmt Next edit →
Line 105:		Line 105:

	I will comment that I have very little patience with editors who yell "Vandalism" in order to "win" a content dispute. [[User:Robert McClenon\|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon\|talk]]) 03:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)		I will comment that I have very little patience with editors who yell "Vandalism" in order to "win" a content dispute. [[User:Robert McClenon\|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon\|talk]]) 03:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
			: I think you did a pretty good job with the closing statement there. Especially the last line {{wink}}. [[User:Yashovardhan Dhanania\|Yashovardhan]] ([[User talk:Yashovardhan Dhanania\|talk]]) 18:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)