Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Dispute Resolution    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Dispute Resolution, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
NOTE: This is not the place to post notices of disputes, questions about particular articles, or requests for assistance. Posts that are not a discussion of the project page Wikipedia:Dispute resolution will simply be ignored or collapsed. Please follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Noticeboards needing attention[edit]

What to do with Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard?[edit]

The Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard may have some volunteers, but more volunteers are needed. Some cases are left without a mediator to answer them. I tried addressing this at WT:NOR, WT:NORN, and WP:VPP. However, no one responded. I've not yet addressed this at WP:AN because I'm unsure whether the issue affects administrators. What to do about the Noticeboard, mentioned by this policy? --George Ho (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

NPOV and SPI noticeboards[edit]

Seems that Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard is not the only noticeboard having issues, particularly participation. The issue of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard was addressed at its project talk page, particularly insufficient neutral volunteers. Also, the backlogging of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations has been addressed at WP:AN. The policy page mentions these noticeboards, but it looks like more volunteers are needed for them. --George Ho (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

More noticeboards[edit]

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard may be crowded and receiving responses. However, even when not backlogged, some messages may not have received one, and then they get archived without one. More volunteers would be nice. --George Ho (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed change at Template:Calm[edit]

I am proposing a change in Template:Calm to add a link to this page. As this template is used in pages where arguments tend to be heated, we can help avoid conflicts by this change. Have a look at this talk page suggestion. Yashovardhan (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that the aforementioned change has been done after consultations on the Template talk page. As such, dispute resolution processes may be used more often. Please be prepared for an increased inflow of new complaints at different noticeboards/processes. Yashovardhan (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed addition describing excellent discussion[edit]

I propose the first paragraph of the section "Discuss with the other party" be modified by insertion of the italicized text below. The italicized wikilink points at the essay WP:Writing for the opponent.

"Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia. The first step to successful discussion to make sure everyone understands the other's point of view. Many conflicts result from misunderstandings that could be easily avoided by taking time to repeat back the other editor's opposing viewpoint. This ensures everyone knows exactly what is in dispute, why it is in dispute, and communicates to others that you are willing to work with them constructively. When others feel you are listening they are less likely to response with hostility. In contrast, discussing heatedly or poorly – or not at all – will make other editors less sympathetic to your position, and prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. Sustained discussion between the parties, even if not immediately successful, demonstrates your good faith and shows you are trying to reach a consensus. Try negotiating a truce or proposing a compromise through negotiation."

The remaining paragraphs would not be changed.

Comments? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. I've taken workshops on active listening too. However it's a short step from active listening to open mocking of ones opponents and mockery does not a productive discussion make. I'd rather direct people to WP:DBAD because it's at least unambiguous and simple.--Jayron32 02:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Given the link to "Don't be a jerk" I assume this was humor. But if it wasn't humor, I don't find the worry that editors will be abusive to be a good reason to not encourage people to use some form of Cyclic redundancy check to clear up disputes before they occur. If the possibily that people will be a jerk anyway were a reason for not providing helpful advice, then our policy, guideline, and infopages would be hugely condensed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Dispute resolution RfC[edit]

Hello. You are invited to comment on this RfC, which seeks to reform certain aspects of Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. Biblio (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Final mediation/final arbitration[edit]

I just undid these changes because neither is precisely correct. Formal mediation is not the "last resort" because, while there is a natural progression — 3O, DRN, MEDCOM, RFC — you can start doing content DR at any one of them without doing the "lower" ones and, indeed, go backwards so long as you only do them one at a time. Moreover, RFC is closer to being the last resort than MEDCOM since it invites the entire community into the resolution process. MEDCOM is often referred to as Formal Mediation because both DRN and, to a lesser extent, 3O do forms of informal or semi-formal mediation. (It's also somewhat a legacy name from the days in which the Mediation Cabal was operating, which was also less formal than MEDCOM.) On the other hand, Arbitration is never called "Formal Arbitration" and, while it's generally recognized that 3O and DRN do informal mediation, action taken at one of the conduct forums — administrators individually, AN, ANI, AN/3, and others — is never thought of as informal arbitration. I can see how the symmetry might be thought of as being nice, but it's not accurate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 05:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

An editor who deletes an input in the "See also" section iso moving it to the "External links" section - is that a good editor?[edit]

I've got +900 edits and contributions to the wikipedia, not always small stuff. I contribute financially to the wikipedia. I hold 3 Academic degrees. My first edits date from 2006. I want to change my view, but I have the impression moderators have become very irrespectful for contributions. Is the award mechanism still ok? Does it really take that much more effort for a moderator to move a contribution from e.g. the "See also" section to the "External links" section iso just deleting valuable contribution to the article? Thy--SvenAERTS (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@SvenAERTS: I can't say whether the editor you are referring to is right or wrong but as a general rule, The "See also" section is meant to contain links to Wikipedia articles that are related to the topic whereas the "External Links" is to hold links to articles/websites which are outside of Wikipedia. Eg. In the article, Kolkata Knight Riders, the link to the page List of Kolkata Knight Riders records might be a good addition to the "See also" section but a link to the official website of the team will be good only at the "External Links" section. If you have a specific dispute, you can use any of the Dispute resolution methods available. Yashovardhan (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Weasel words for WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE[edit]

Try to avoid discussing conduct issues on article Talk pages. To me, this suggests that article talk pages are appropriate spaces to discuss conduct disputes. It suggests that it's discouraged, but not strictly prohibited. Is my understanding correct? At any rate, I believe the section should be re-written to explicitly clarify which spaces are allowed for discussing conduct disputes. I personally feel that conduct disputes should never be discussed on an article talk page, and I would support a rule change to this effect. Fluous (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Sounds too prescriptive and rule creepish to me. A guidance on where to discuss is a better, which is what we have now. Stickee (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Support A prior section of this guideline explicitly directs people to Focus on content at article talk and not ed behavior. I frequently object to rule wording changes citing CREEP but since Fluos is only asking that we write consistently CREEP is not in play here. Since WP:FOC is already the rule, I tried a bold edit to eliminate the internal contradiction. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
No, it's not at odds with FOC. FOC also gives guidance, and not a rule that discussing conduct is completely prohibited.That's why it says "focus on content" and not "only discuss content". Stickee (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, I see the point of the fine hair you're splitting. I don't agree that's a correct reading, but I do admit its ambiguous. The primary guideline for talk page etiquette is, of course the WP:TPG. I'll start a new thread at that location to ask for a wider input on the question. I'll post a link to that thread here once I've copy edited it, and will include pings to the eds who have commented so far. Give me a few minutes... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I just posted a thread about this issue at the main guideline discussing talk page use. The new thread is here. . Would welcome your participation there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Graham's hierarchy of disagreement as it applies to dispute resolution at Wikipedia[edit]

Section Discuss with the other party contains a picture of our version of Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. The lowest tier there is "Ad Hominem", the definition of which uses the term "authority" (, section "DH1.") In a recent dispute, the question came up how exactly that term applies to Wikipedia. Can we establish a consensus for that? — Sebastian 11:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Volunteeriness of participation in content dispute resolution, consequences of nonparticipation[edit]

I have recently become aware that admins occasionally take failure or refusal to participate in content dispute resolution into consideration in determining whether an editor is NOT HERE. We in DR have always said that participation in content DR is entirely voluntary. I have attempted to reconcile these positions (and give adequate warning to DR parties) in this edit. Comments and revisions are welcome. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Long edit summaries[edit]

Everyone involved in content dispute resolution needs to be aware of this discussion and survey. Edit summaries have been recently increased from about 250 characters to 1000 characters. See my !vote here about that issue, but your opinion may, of course, go the other way. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)