Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Dispute Resolution    (Inactive)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Dispute Resolution, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
 
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
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 percieved 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. Disussion 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?
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 contributers.
Q13. The other editor refuses to discuss. What should I do?

Best Known for IP[edit]

The report that I just closed was an encounter with the Best Known for IP, also known as the Best Known for Vandal. In the abstract, one can argue that any given edit by the IP, removing the phrase "best known for", is not vandalism, but is the removal of opinion. (I think that, in most particular cases, the IP would be right, except that their whole pattern of conduct is wrong.) However, the IP is disruptive, and has such a long-term pattern of abuse that they are treated as a vandal. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. I advised the reporter that this noticeboard doesn't deal with misconduct by a particular editor, and that the best approach is to revert the edits, request semi-protection of the page, and report the IP to WP:AIV, the vandalism noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

For clarity, that IP is definitely not Best Known for IP.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, User:Berean Hunter - We agree that it wasn't the Best Known for IP. I think that it was a Best Known for copy-cat. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Human Rights in Israel[edit]

The Human Rights in Israel discussion was robotically archived because the do-not-archive date had passed and there was no discussion in a period of time. I have restored it and changed the do-not-archive date. If the discussion is ongoing, please make sure that the do-not-archive date (which is initially two weeks from the filing) stays in the future. If the case is finished, please mark it finished so that it will be archived, but it looks ongoing. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to restore, Robert. Still showing up as "closed."
BTW, I tried adding to it earlier this week and each time I clicked on edit I got a totally different section.--NYCJosh (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Call for Volunteers[edit]

@DRN volunteers: - We have at least two and maybe several cases that are waiting for volunteers to moderate them. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

edit notice[edit]

I'm a bit confused by this edit notice: Please do not continue to discuss disputes before a volunteer has opened a thread. If necessary, please continue to discuss on the article talk page. Don't continue to discuss but if necessary please continue to discuss? It's a puzzler for a first-timer! Perhaps it could use some copy edit or something explanatory added to the FAQ above. I don't know what "opening a thread" means, either, so not sure how long I'm supposed to wait or not wait, as the case may be. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I found Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#Summary and it looks like I can post opening comments at DRN but discussion at DRN waits for the volunteer. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)