Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Dispute Resolution
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Dispute Resolution, a collaborative effort to improve dispute resolution practices on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Anglo-Saxon Settlement of Britain[edit]

Is some volunteer willing to take on this persistent case with multiple editors? It looks to me as though it may be more appropriate for formal mediation in view of how many editors it involves and how many times it has been raised here or at other noticeboards. However, is anyone willing to take it? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


Can someone please help me address this request, which I closed again today? I don't entirely know what the filing party is saying, mostly recently on my talk page. It appears that they have a dispute with one other editor, when there are multiple editors involved. It also appears to me that they are stating their issue as a conduct dispute, although I am having difficulty understanding their statement. If some volunteer does understand what the issue is, and is willing to moderate, they can encourage the filing party to refile. I think that there may be a language barrier that prevents effective moderation. If someone is able to transcend that barrier, I thank them. Can someone take another look and see if I should have opened the case or if it should be reopened? I can't open it myself both because I already have a case and because I can't understand what the filing party is saying. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Hastings[edit]

User:Hchc2009 has made some interesting conditions on their acceptance of my mediation, including the right of the parties to the mediation to assign research to the mediator. I have never worked mediation in that way, because it has been my view that the parties should present their views of the facts, should be able to state their views clearly to each other and to the moderator, and that the moderator does not arbitrate on matters of fact such as disputed historical facts (the main issue here). We can do one of three things. First, another moderator can take over, either who either will meet the conditions of Hchc2009 or in whom Hchc2009 has confidence. In that case, mediation can proceed. Second, Hchc2009 can withdraw from the mediation and the mediation can continue with less than all of the editors. Third, I can fail the mediation. If I fail the mediation, it can be taken to formal mediation, where the moderator typically has even stricter control, or a Request for Comments can be used. I am willing (either during mediation or after failing mediation) to assist in writing a neutrally worded RFC. What do other volunteers say? What do the parties say? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

As noted previously, the original talk page discussion on the article concerned llasted only a few hours; much of the world would have slept through it. The guidance is clear that this sort of process should not begin until there has been substantive dialogue on those pages. A fourth alternative would be to return the debate it to the article page and let normal debate ensue, without making demands on editors such as myself to "check these pages very 48 hours" etc. - which isn't a very productive way to start off a mediation discussion. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I will also comment that User:Hchc2009, whom I added manually to the list of editors, has removed themselves from the list of editors. I am a little puzzled as to how someone who has deleted themselves from the list of editors wants to set conditions on how the case is mediated, but that is what it is. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
If you're prepared not to bother me again, Robert, then let's leave it at that. I didn't ask you to add me to your list in the first place, nor to demand that I check these pages every 48 hours,, etc,, etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll point out that I too felt that too little discussion took place on the talk page. And I also felt that "Every editor must check on the status of this case at least every 48 hours and answer all questions at least every 48 hours." for what is supposed to be a voluntary process (or at least I assume so) was really very demanding. The way it was phrased quite put me off on the whole process, honestly. I felt like my effort to go along with this process (attempting to show my good faith in the other editor) was being demanded and that I was being talked down to. If this is supposed to be voluntary ... it sure didn't feel like it after that statement. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Going Forward[edit]

I have always stated the 48-hour rule for moderated discussion, and it is necessary in order to be consistent with the principle that most cases are settled in one to two weeks. Discussion here can’t be an off-and-on process. We can’t wait for a long time for editors to take wikibreaks while leaving the case on hold. We have to keep cases here moving. Formal mediation often takes months. All that happens if an editor doesn’t respond in 48 hours is that they don’t contribute to that round of discussion, and the thread moves in, and they can jump in later, but should notice anything that has been said. If no editor comments in 48 hours, a case will be closed without prejudice, meaning that it can be refiled.

We can handle this in at least five ways. First, another moderator can take over. Second, Hchc2009 can remain withdrawn from the mediation, and the mediation can continue. Third, I can close the mediation and send it back to the article talk page. I see that two editors appear to be requesting that. I think that at least The Parson’s Cat requested the mediation, but if other editors choose not to mediate, there is no mediation, and discussion can go back to the talk page. Fourth, formal mediation can be requested. (This is informal mediation.) Fifth, a Request for Comments can be used. I would like to hear the comments of other volunteers. If no one says anything in 24 hours, I will close the case without prejudice and send it back to the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Electoral Commission[edit]

The arbcom electoral commission needs at least one more volunteer, and comments on the existing volunteers would also be welcome. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Electoral Commission for details. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)