Misplaced Pages

talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:09, 30 March 2013 editGuy Macon (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers59,287 edits →Split the page: CarrieVS has a very good point← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:39, 18 October 2024 edit undoBon courage (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users66,214 edits →Time to shut down DRN: close 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header}} {{talk header}}
<!--Not to be deleted as this is the DR noticboard talk page-->
{{FAQ|collapsed=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Dispute Resolution}} {{WikiProject Dispute Resolution}}
}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 10 |counter = 33
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
Line 11: Line 14:
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
__TOC__


== Etan Ilfeld ==
]

;Open DRN cases
{{:Template:DRN case status}}
{{AutoArchivingNotice|age=14|dounreplied=yes|bot=MiszaBot II|small=yes}}
___TOC___

== Why have two duplicate Volunteer Guidelines? ==

Why does the page ] have the name "manual of style"? That is a rather inaccurate name - "style" implies it is limited to stylistic matters (capitalization, italics, etc). Also, including the phrase "manual of style" in the page name may imply to readers that this is part of the ], which it is not. More importantly: about half the page (the entire "Opening a case" section) is process-oriented guidance on how to mediate. A better name would be "Volunteer guide" or "Volunteer manual". And why is there so much content overlap with the ] page? --] (]) 03:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
:It looks like that entire "style" page was created in 4 days (Jan 23 to Jan 27) ... was there some discussion about ] being inadequate? Another page had to be created? Maybe I missed that discussion. --] (]) 03:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
::It also looks like the instructions at the top of ] (instructions for volunteers) now primarily links to the "manual of style" page, instead of the older, broader ] page ... when did that change happen? Was there a discussion? --] (]) 04:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
:::I see a brief mention of the style guide at ]. I think we should revisit it and consider merging the two documents. Is there some compelling need for two documents? --] (]) 04:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
::::That can be renamed "Volunteer guidelines" but yes, we should have seperate pages for the volunteer page and a full guide with more detail.--] (]) 04:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::What is the difference between the purposes of the two pages? --] (]) 04:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::It looks like there is a huge amount of duplication between the two pages, mostly in (a) full replication of the "case status" color code/status descriptors; and (b) tips/guidance/advice; and (c) instructions on how to close. Both pages are relatively small. Do you have any objection to merging the two pages? --] (]) 04:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
{{od}}
I've restored the link at the top of the ] page (the link for volunteers to go to get instructions) to point to the original ] .. which is a page about a year old, and that many editors have worked on. We should probably have more people review the new "style" page before we put a link to it in a prominent location at the top of the DRN page. Plus we should look at the overlap between the two and figure out what to do. --] (]) 04:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
:I think you are over reacting and I think the link was fine. This sounds like you just don't like it. I'm sorry you missed the discussion but your making changes after the fact then demanding we revisit it is a little off putting and sounds like a simple content dispute. If you want to discuss something why would you start changing links to it when the disucssion just begins. What is it you want?--] (]) 04:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
::It is best if the instructions for DRN are simple and concise. I do not see a need for 2 separate pages. The two pages look nearly identical. One is older, and has been worked on by many editors. The 2nd page you created looks very similar to the older page. The 2nd page was only reviewed by one other editor, and then the top of the DRN page was changed to link to the new page (with no notice to the DRN community?). I'd recommend that we have several volunteers review the new "style" page and see if there is a strong reason for a 2nd page. Both pages are very small, and nearly identical in content. If you can articulate a clear distinction between the two pages, and explain why volunteers should have to visit 2 ''separate'' small pages to get guidance, that might be helpful to understand your goals. --] (]) 04:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
:::If this is just for the consensus of editors here, would you like a formal RFC or just a local discussion here? We could just ask all volunteers to review the page and see if they !vote, "remove it"- "merge relveant material to the volunteer page"- "Keep it and alter it"- or just "keep it with no change".--] (]) 05:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Sure, but it is hard for me (and I presume other editors) to give an opinion until we understand the reason behind the new Style page. It would help if you could explain: (1) What distinct purposes do the two pages serve? (2) why didn't you just add material to the older Volunteering page? and (3) why can't the two pages be merged? Your answers should clarify matters. --] (]) 05:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::If you have an issue could you state it and propose what you want adresssed and how, perhaps?--] (]) 05:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::Here is the original discussion: .--] (]) 05:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::The issue is that we now have two instruction pages that are nearly identical, which causes confusion and duplication in a high-visibility WP:DR process. The proposal is to merge the two pages. Can you answer the questions I posed above (1,2,3), please? --] (]) 05:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::::I don't know what your listed quetions are but the Volunteering page is the landing page where editors can add their name to the volunteer list and get an overview of the process. The Guide is a detailed summary of how new editors can become involved and guidence for quick closing and advice on how to get started if you are unsure where to begin. The overview has a main link to the guide as the more detailed full suggestions. I just don't see an issue here accpet that it just be titled Volunteer guide--] (]) 07:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::::The questions are 4 posts above. I'll repeat them here: (1) What distinct purposes do the two pages serve? (2) why didn't you just add material to the older Volunteering page? and (3) why can't the two pages be merged? You've sort of answered #1 (you feel that the old page is an overview, and your new page is a "detailed" page); can you answer the other two questions? Thanks. --] (]) 10:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
{{od}}
And I see that you just created ] today. That appears to be nearly identical to the 2-year old project ]. I'm not trying to be annoying, but it looks like you are replicating things that already exist: first the ] page, and now the DR project. There is a shortage of volunteers in WP, and large backlogs of work to be done. It is best if we don't multiply the number of guidelines and projects unless there is a compelling reason. If the existing items are not meeting your needs, it is best to try to enhance them before replicating them. --] (]) 11:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
::Just because you don't like it or don't get it, is no reason to try and make some point. Regardless of what you are trying to do or not, the outcome appears to be the very thing you claim to not be attempting.

::Point blank, after we created the Volunteer guide we did indeed begin to see more volunteers begin to start at DR/N for the first or second time and we now have more active volunteers than we did before it. Project Conflict resolution picks up where the DR Project leaves off - Conduct. It is actually very simple. I am encouraged by DR/N...not trying to replace it. Frankly that is a very innaccruate accusation.--] (]) 22:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
:::Can you answer questions (2) and (3) above? Thanks. --] (]) 00:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
::::There is no concensus for a merger and I boldly created the guide to elaborate on becoming involved in the board as it was clear, to me at least, that many editors were not clear on the best ways to start. A simple sign up page may have a small summary of guidelines, but we can have a full page to go into further detail. None of this is controversial and as it appears this is a matter that you have with just me, and no one else has weighed in, please request a third opinion if you feel you wish to take this furhter up the DR process. Thanks. Happy editing.--] (]) 01:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::To make sure I have this right: in your view, the original Volunteering page is a "sign up page" and the new page is the "detailed" guidelines for volunteers? Is that correct? --] (]) 13:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::Pretty much. I see it as a ''']'''.--] (]) 23:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Hmmm, I guess I could live with that, provided that some of the duplication were removed from the "sign up page", so that updates don't have to be made in two places. Your post, when you created that new page, said ''"I am putting together a manual of style for volunteers. Please feel free to help add to it."'' which really didn't convey what was happening ... so I doubt many editors looked to review what was happening. Do you have any objection to me removing duplicate material from the old page, and just using links to the new page? --] (]) 01:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::I do object. Nothing is broken, so there is nothing to fix. I disagree that the edit summary failed to convey my meaning. Many articles and pages have summaries of more detailed pages. If anything perhaps we could expand the summary but we don't call the content redundant and remove it. This is becoming sort of dead horse at this point.--] (]) 02:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
{{od}} I saw this discussion and viewed both the original guide and the new one created by Amadscientist. I'm pleased that a more comprehensive guide was created, in the second survey I ran some comments were made that the existing DRN volunteering guide lacked some details, and the new guide I feel is more substantial. I do think that having these on two separate pages would create confusion for volunteers. Not everyone is as good at dispute resolution as we are, and it can be a daunting task. Needing to read over two pages, IMHO, is too much. I've edited the volunteering page merging in most of the content from the new guide into the old one, then reverted my changes so they can be reviewed first. . What do you all think? <font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> 10:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
:SZ: Can you clarify: It sounds like you are proposing to merge the two; but when I click on that link, that page contains the text {{main|Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteer guide}} ... is that just an oversight and that link should be removed? Or are you proposing to leave the two pages separate? In any case, I think a single page is adequate (it should only be split into two pages if the single page gets over about 10 screenfuls (it only take 4 screens in my platform). Both pages have some good gems that should definitely be retained. --] (]) 15:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
::Never mind: I looked at your changes more carefully, and it is clear you are merging the "best of" both pages into one. And that "main" link is not supposed to be there. I support your proposal. --] (]) 17:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
:::Still do not support a merge-change or deletion of the Volunteer Guide.--] (]) 05:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
::::I proposed a middle ground (removing duplicate material) but you refuse to budge, and appear to be taking a "my way or the highway" approach. There are two editors (who were not involved in the guideline duplication effort) who think this duplication is not the most efficient way to present information to volunteers. Plus there is the puzzling circumstance that the duplication was presented to the DRN community as a "manual of style". Unless you can find another editor to agree with you, I don't see an alternative to merging. --] (]) 00:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::I've implemented SZ's suggested approach of combining "the best of both" pages into one page. If anyone things the guideline should be split into two, feel free to start a conversation in this talk page, but this time such a section should be named ''"Should the Volunteer guideline be split into overview page & detailed page"'' or something like that. --] (]) 23:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::I don't see a consensus to make these changes so you should probably expect I will return most of it boldly myself in some form. Why bother with discussion if you aren't either. There was no consensus for the change and Steven was trying to allow some discussion to take place so a consensus could occur. Seems an odd way to deal with things on the "Dispute resolution Noticeboard" where you yourself claim we have no special powers but then turn around and ignore the rules. I will certainly leave whatever is a clear improvement but much was just edit warring and doing an end run around policy and guidelines.--] (]) 00:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::::Clearly we are not able to form a consensus here. I suggest editors that do not agree with having an actual volunteer guide simply create an AFD so that the general community can help form a decision either way. Seems the best way to avoid furthering this dispute. And the irony is not lost on me.--] (]) 01:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::How about an RfC? --] (]) 01:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

== Discussing article content, not user conduct. ==

I have been working on the Adolph Hitler case, and it looks like progress is being made, but there are also some very hard feelings about prior interactions, so I have been strictly enforcing a "discuss article content, not user conduct" rule. It might not be ideal for all DRN cases, but it is working fairly well on this one.

A user brought up the following question: Should I ask the disputants to avoid comments like "Great job", and " lays out the argument well" as well? My first reaction is that this is how we arrive at consensus, but the user argues that praising someone is about user conduct, not about content.

To complicate the matter, the person who asked that appears to have support for his position from other editors, but they have not chosen to discuss this much other than in their initial statement, whereas those opposing him are pretty much all active in the discussion, which can result in tag teaming. Where this intersects the above question about praise comments is that among the comments about other editors I collapsed were claims to the effect of "nobody agrees with you", (and I collapsed his replies listing who does) so I can see why he might be sensitive about praise among editors who oppose him, and see it as an extension of the "nobody supports you" argument that he is not allowed to rebut.

I am still leaning toward my first reaction -- this is how we arrive at consensus -- but would like some opinion from other DR volunteers on this. Comments? --] (]) 15:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

:In the ordinary course of things positive comments ought to be ignored and negative ones slapped down, unless the positive comments are being somehow used to manipulate the process, but my feeling is that once objection has been made that conduct is conduct. Praise for good arguments can be formulated as such without praising the individual. In that context " lays out the argument well" would be acceptable while " lays out the argument well" would not. At the same time, however, conduct management in the dispute cannot be allowed to wag the dog and an objection to positive comments can be an attempt to manipulate or derail the process. It's a balancing act and each case and each instance in each case has to be adjudged on its own. Ultimately the question the volunteer has to ask him/herself is: "Is doing/not doing x going to move the case forward or interfere with it." Fairness, moral right and wrong, and etiquette all play a part in answering that question, but none of them can be allowed to absolutely control it. Best regards, ] (]) 16:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
::Well said TM.--] (]) 23:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
:::One must read such comments in proper context. Both examples given are in relation to content which was presented with detail and cites; which one concurs with without rehashing the content with cites; there is no need for redundancy which wastes time and takes up space. It is a balancing act, I agree.

:::Time, gentlemen is the enemy of us all; some have more time to spend on a matter then others due to life concerns. If a personal attack is made or a comment is made to what another user has written and that is all the one stating the "positive" agreement has contributed to a discussion, then in that case one can easily discern the comment is one which is not appropriate and should be ignored. As for the current status of the discussion, it looks very promising. And the sentences in the lede of the article which were questioned, are being tweaked but not deleted as originally called for; all currently involved are working to a new consensus at this point, I believe; which is good; for a better volunteer encyclopedia. ] (]) 23:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
::::As one of the people engaged in praising another contributor's work, I accept that this could be sometimes seen as manipulating the process as TM suggests. My comment came after a long stalemate was broken by the careful work of another contributor, and, to paraphrase Guy's response, we were finally getting somewhere. I didn't feel it would suffice to simply say "fine by me" or "I agree" because in my view it really provided much-needed momentum to get the discussion out of the mud and on the road again. Having said this, I won't be doing any more high-fiving or backslapping—at least not here—if it's seen as scuttling progress. ] (]) 02:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
::::: I agree with TransporterMan's point that each case and each instance in each case has to be adjudged on its own. Which is why I wrote: ''"I ONLY think this important in THIS discussion as we DO have a problem here that numerous editors have refused to discuss the points I am making, by seeking refuge in a 'consensus' argument, and by trying to argue that I am the ONLY problem for the sentence being disputed. So THAT -- coupled with praising a perceived avoidance/blind spot(?) of the synthesis issue -- is what I am referring to as unhelpful user-conduct commentary."''
:::::DETAIL: This DRN discussion was initiated to discuss a charge of ] for a sentence that was unverifiable/had no sources. The praised user replied to ONLY one aspect of the disputed sentence: viz. one of the two numbers in it. They did so without addressing the synthesis aspect AT ALL, and by ignoring the sources that had been provided which specifically contradict that specific number used (Lipsatdt & Longerich on the 11 million). Plus, the exact same info had ALREADY been supplied ON THE TALK PAGE discussion, while ignoring the 'synthesis' aspect. That avoidance was the cause of taking this to DRN in the first place. Thus this reply was NOT seen by me as moving the conversation forward. Therefore, comments like ''"outstanding and rigorous work as always"'', ''"now we are getting somewhere!"'', "''Great work"'' etc., were praise for a reply that had already been made and which STILL IGNORED the whole point of the DRN case: SYNTHESIS! --] (]) 08:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

:Might I suggest that it doesn't matter who did what? I'm sure no harm was intended, and I don't see how debating conduct here instead of there gets us anywhere. It's how we're ''going'' to behave over the rest of the case that's important, surely? ] (]) 09:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

::You might be interested in my response to this same question on my talk page. It is at the end of the "AH dispute" section. --] (]) 18:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

::: To use TransporterMan's criteria, I D0 think (consciously or unconsciously) "harm" is occurring, as "... positive comments are being ...used to manipulate the process," and a consensus argument is being shored up by praising the perceived main contestant in a content dispute. I.e. much as one supports and cheers on their own sport 'champion' even if they are performing badly and even not following the rules. The praise in this case was for lists that did NOT address the disputed 'synthesis' issue, and included factually inaccurate material. I am still flagging this up to avoid it being allowed in future discussions, in my particular DRN case, but also anywhere else.--] (]) 07:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

== Trying something via alternate account ==

I often want to answer a question or leave a procedural comment in a dispute before it is ripe to be opened, but am hesitant to do so because I'm afraid that my name will be listed under "Last volunteer edit" in the status chart and other volunteers will think I've "taken" or opened the case and won't look at it or take it. I've now created an alternate account, ], that I intend to use to leave those comments. I've tried it and it works; it shows up under "Last edit" but leaves the "Last volunteer edit" blank. (I now wish that I'd named that alternate account "NotADisputant" or "NotaDRNvolunteer", but what the hey.) Just saying... Best regards, ] (]) 18:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
:This should be OK from what I read about alternate accounts. I think that is a fantastic idea TM.--] (]) 02:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

== Re-adding 'unassessed' status ==

The ] says you can manually re-add the unassessed status to a case if necessary. I did it with the second amendment case, but earwigbot promptly changed it back to open. But then I realised I'd done it wrong (changed the parameter to unassessed, rather than leaving it blank). But would I be right in assuming it would have been reverted to open even if I'd got it right, since I guess it just detects volunteers' signatures? (btw, I edited the guidelines, then reverted when I realised I'd made a mistake, and only then realised probably made no difference but decided to stop messing about with it.)

And assuming that is the case, maybe it would be useful to make it possible - see TransporterMan's comment above. If it can reasonably be done, of course. Maybe creating an 'unassessed' option for the template, which looks exactly the same as blank but the bot doesn't change it? Might be more trouble than it's worth, though, and I don't know how you'd then get the bot to recognise when it ''should'' change it to open.

Any thoughts? ] (]) 22:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
:Yes, there should be some way to set a case back to unassessed. Adding new keywords for the state is a bit of a pain, since it requires updating the DRN bot, and updating all the documentation, etc ... so it should only be done as a last resort. It sounds like we need more information to make a informed decision: we don't know if blanking the state will meet the goal, correct? --] (]) 23:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
== RfC: should the DRN guideline be split into an overview page and detailed page? ==

{{rfc|policy|rfcid=12095AA}}
DRN has had a guide for volunteers ] for over a year. Recently, an editor felt it was wise to split it into two pages: an overview, and a "detailed" page. The new "detailed" page can be viewed here: ]. The question is whether the guideline is better as a single page, or as two pages. --] (]) 01:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

'''Background''' - The ] was created a year and a half ago, and had many editors work on it. The new "detailed" guide was created two months ago, in Jan 2013. The creation was announced in this DRN talk page ] but it was presented as a "manual of style" and did not attract much attention. The creator of the "manual of style" changed the DRN page top to link to the new detailed guideline instead of the original guideline. For more details about the pros and cons of one vs two pages, see the discussion ]. --] (]) 02:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

===Comments on Guideline RfC===
'''Single page''' - The guideline, in a single page, is not very big. There is no good reason to force readers to visit two pages. The new "detailed" page had some good ideas in it, and those have been incorporated into ] .,.. so that page now includes the "best of both" pages, and it should provide one-stop shopping. --] (]) 01:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support a main page Volunteer Guide with link on the Volunteer Landing page.''' The creation of the full guide was followed by a slight influx of new volunteers at a time when the board had a huge backlog. It was the opinion of the creating editor that a full guide was needed to encourage editors already signed up to step forward and seems to have had a net positive effect. The RFC proposing editor has attempted to blank the Volunteer guide and have it deleted against consensus (and policy by asking for a housekeeping deletion after blanking ) even after the founding editor agreed that discussion should be attempted. This is not a controversial issue and I feel that the RFC is the incorrect route to take for a deletion of a page. It was actually suggested that an AFD be made but seems some may not be clear at this noticeboard as what route to take or suggest when a dispute arises about the deletion of a page. Ironic I know, when we should be able to suggest the proper route for this issue.--] (]) 02:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
::The issue is here now as an RFC so let's settle it this way and get it over with. It's a pretty clear-cut choice between two outcomes that needs to be decided. ] 15:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
:::I'm not suggesting an outright deletion of the new "details" pane ... it had some great ideas in it (that were not in the original guideline). I'm suggesting that the two pages be merged. The RfC question is simply: put it all into one page? or split over two pages? --] (]) 16:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
*'''Single page''' I agree with the "one stop shopping" idea. Both pages are good, so a combination of the good elements into one page is my preference.] 15:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
::Thanks for helping form a consensus on this.--] (]) 18:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
*By the way, just to note, the RFC should probably ask if we want to return to a single page and delete the existing page, as that is really what is being proposed. To be clear, this is about reversing a bold creation made months ago that the proposing editor now objects to. As for the claim that the original bold creation did not draw attention, it has been edited by editors other than myself and there was a consensus with no opposition to it when created.--] (]) 02:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
*Just another note. The editor who has merged content from another page needs to either revert back to before the merged content was added (as that is the point of this RFC) or add attribution for the content that is not original that was copied from the other page in some form. According to policy the very least that should be done is attribution in the edit summary.--] (]) 09:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
::I've that says that some of the material was taken from the newer page. Let me know if you want anything else added to the merged page. --] (]) 23:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
:::That was not an attribution. To do so you need to state that content from <nowiki>]</nowiki> was merged to <nowiki>]</nowiki>. You didn't even name the original article properly so that editors can find it. But then your point is to delete that article as a "house keeping" issue against guidelines.--] (]) 08:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
*'''One page''' - I like the new guide. I think that the info it has that the other page was missing, and should be incorporated into the original. But what I wouldn't like is having two pages with similar info on them, even if one is more of an intro and the other is more in-depth. We have enough issues getting a steady flow of volunteers. I'd much rather have one page where they can refer back to now and again to learn procedures of the board, than two separate pages. We want to make it simple for them. Let's not overcomplicate things. -- (unsigned from ])
*'''One page''' : I also like the new guide, but feel it should be part of the main page where it is easy to see and easy to follow. At the worst, it should be linked from the main page, not an ideal situation, and I doubt it will be used much that way. If we want volunteers to be able to learn and use the information we have to make the advice hyper easy to access.(] (]) 03:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC))
::Really? I didn't know people volunteering would need such hyper simplicity. But what do I know..I only wrote most of that guide. Noleander can't be bothered to make a real attribution. So obviously he is not exactly following the spirit or guidelines of the noticeboard itself. I will remain a volunteer but this experience has altered my view drastically on how this notice board is being run and I am now understanding a lot more about things I have been reading.--] (]) 08:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

== Can an IP be a volunteer? ==

Is this right? Unregistered users can be listed as a volunteer and can open and close disputes? Really?--] (]) 09:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
:Well, to the best of my knowledge, it doesn't say anywhere that they can't, but the volunteer guide is at pains to stress that '']'' can be a volunteer. Of course, we could change that if we got consensus for it, but until then, I'm pretty sure IPs can volunteer. ] (]) 09:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
::The problem is..an IP is not always a single user. Does this effect the bot in anyway? Can that effect the fairness of the process etc?--] (]) 20:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
:::If IPs can list themselves as volunteers to open and close a dispute and mediate, this is probably the best argument I have seem yet to dismantle the volunteer list.--] (]) 21:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Well, anywhere, even just on talk pages it can be a little more complicated when IP editors are involved in a situation, both because you can't be sure that any earlier edits were made by the same person and the opposite, edits by the same person from different IPs. DRN is informal, so I don't see why there's more need to exclude unregistered users here than anywhere else. It's pretty unlikely, surely, that two unregistered users from the same IP address would both come to DRN as volunteers at the same time, and if they did it would be obvious to them both. And if it's not at the same time, I don't see why it matters. It might, perhaps, occasionally result in some minor confusion or complication, but I would think that could be dealt with on a case by case basis. I can't think of any way it would be at all likely to cause a problem that wasn't easily sorted out.
::::On the other hand, I ''would'' support adding a line to the guide to the effect that IP users ''can'' be volunteers, but it is ''recommended'' that editors wanting to volunteer register and edit logged-in when acting as volunteers, particularly if their IP address is shared. ] (]) 21:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::Since I'm on record for the position that IP's shouldn't be able to edit at all, you might think that I am opposed to this as well, but actually my problem with IP's volunteering here is not so much the fact that they're an IP per se as the fact that either (a) they're inexperienced, with the problems that raises for someone trying to do DR, or (b) they're not sufficiently invested in Misplaced Pages to have the best interests of the encyclopedia as their guidestar. While I've seen IP's who are exceptions to those two objections, they're a considerable minority. If we're going to address the issue, however, I'd rather see us adopt some experience standards rather than exclude IP editors altogether. That will cure 98% of the problem one way or the other. At the same time, however, I'm not at all sure that the issue is important enough for us to spend a lot of time and angst writing guidelines about. We can just deal with the inexperienced ones on a case by case basis as we ]. Best regards, ] (]) 21:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::I agree pretty much with everything being said here. If there were to be any additional guidelines on the issue and we were to continue to allow IP editors to "volunteer" I would very much support adding a line that Shared IPs are excluded for the very reason that are established as not being a single individual and there could be possible tag teaming from the shared address. My biggest concern is that IPs represent an address and not an individual in general.--] (]) 22:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

== What about when a participant here disavows the consensus forged here? ==

]. a participant here now avers that DR/N is not utile as he did not "agree" to it.
::''DRN should have been about the broad strokes; somehow it turned into a committee designing a sentence. I didn't agree to that part of the process and I'm offended at the suggestion I should agree to it because they tacked it on to a legitimate debate. ''
The DR/N discussion was quite a while ago now (archived 17 Mar - started on 27 Feb) - and the editors who were most vocally opposed to any compromise wording are ''still'' opposed to ''any'' compromise wording - even though I have proposed wording which answers each individual cavil. I was a neutral bystander with no edits on the topic who entered the discussion in the hope that a compromise could be crafted - but when some seem so sure of the ] it gets disheartening indeed.
The DR/N close was:
::''My recommendation is to take the proposal with the most endorsements above, and insert it in the article's lead, and then start a discussion on the Talk page about copy-editing it (punctuation, minor wording improvements). '' (]
The most popular compromise had 7 votes, the "status quo" had 3 (and "fourth choice" from one editor for what its worth), Thanks. ] (]) 15:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
:I'll just say that, of the final two proposals, one had 5 votes and the other 4 votes. Not 7-3. --] (]) 20:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
:::You seem to ignore the opinions and votes which Noleander referred to (the consensus has seven signatories - not just 5 as you seem to think that if a person made his views clear once, they cease to exist unless the person posts them over and over and over and over .... which seems to be how some editors treat this board. -- so you think you can make arbitrary changes to the Consensus without so much as a by-your-leave. I, for one, consider such an abuse of all the work placed on this noticeboard by the editors and volunteers to be absurd and indicative of an elementary school playground and not one of collegial discourse and compromise. Cheers. ] (]) 21:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
::The problem is, that just wasn't a consensus. It was just a straight vote. A consensus is what everyone can live with. You cannot force a version on editors that don't agree and a compromise may still be forthcoming, but it does have to have some kind of rough consensus.--] (]) 20:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
:::Did you read all the compromise language and discussion? That is ''exactly'' how ] works - not be being stubborn enough that no one is willing to look at the playground. ] (]) 21:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
::::No, I'm sorry but that is not how consensus works. It isn't a vote.--] (]) 21:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
::::"''Consensus'' on Misplaced Pages does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote." Tell me more about what ] says. --] (]) 21:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::Consensus doesn't have to be unanimous, but a simple majority won't cut it. 7:3 is not a single disruptive editor refusing to bend, nor is nearly one third of the participants an insignificant minority. We can't just go with the majority and call it consensus because no-one will compromise any further: it's perfectly allowable to end a discussion with no consensus. ] (]) 21:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::Consensus is what everyone can live with. It may not make everyone happy or give everyone what they want, but when everyone has stopped discussing and the changes stick...we have a consensus.--] (]) 22:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::::No, I believe ''compromise'' is where editors work towards a solution that everyone can live with. Consensus is where there is a reasonably clear agreement on a matter. Not everyone needs to be appeased in a consensus based scenario, if 47 people think one thing and one person thinks someone else, it's a clear consensus but not a compromise, that one person likely did not get what they wanted at all. Make sense? <font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> 14:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Golbez' concept: '''this is how its done. if you have a problem with this then you admit the "D"RN cares only about wording and not actually resolving the dispute, and fucking take me to arbcom, no one rational can possibly dispute this.''' . I am surprised anyone can defend that sort ofattitude. Cheers. ] (]) 22:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
:Yeah, I'm pissed. Look back to my edit summary about "barbarians at the gate". --] (]) 01:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
:Collect, you are trying to change the consensus that the U.S. is a "nation state governed by a federal republic" to the U.S. "is a federal republic." ] (]) 23:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
::No, I am. :) That was me, not Collect. Collect WANTS the bad wording that the "consensus" of 5 vs 4 established. --] (]) 01:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
::I placed '''the exact wording favoured by seven editors into the lede''' so that we could discuss changes thereto. I did ''not'' do what you claim I did, and I did ''not'' at any point make the change you baldly assert I sought. Now that we have dealt with what I did ''not'' do, what was your real problem with the most favoured wording from DR/N? My acts in the entire DR/N discussions were aimed at solely reaching a compromise which the ''greatest number of editors'' could accept - which is what ] states is our goal. ] (]) 23:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
:::Not that the exact number really matters all that much, but since you seem so attached to the numbers, can you please clarify exactly who the seven supporters are? I count six signatories. And for one (me), it was my second choice. And in any case your previous claim of there being only three !votes for the other proposal is plainly false as there are clearly four signatories, just in case anyone really cares. ] ≠ ] 01:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

:::Collect voted on the discussion page for the U.S. "is a <s>federal<s> republic, governed by a federal government, " 16:16, 18 March 2013. That differs from the "consensus" version. ] (]) 01:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Wow! Opinion on potential changes to the wording was anticipated at DR/N (indeed, Noleander so stated) - and your posts here verge on incredible indeed. I take it that you feel that my position that '''the CONSENSUS should be placed in the article, and that DISCUSSION can continue''' is somehow wrong? I have read ] and that is exactly what rational editors are supposed to do, TFD. As for the "four signatories" - one of the four stated the version was his "fourth choice" which, I suggest, is not a "ringing endorsement" worth a farthing. Adios.
::::For Older:
:::::''9) The United States of America is a nation state governed by a federal constitutional republic, consisting of fifty states and a federal district as well as several territories. It is commonly called the United States (US, USA, U.S. or U.S.A.) and colloquially as America, The territories have differing degrees of autonomy.'' Voters: '''Collect (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC), RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC), Gwillhickers (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC), TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC). Tho 5 in "local autonomy" are not "direct federal control" by Interior and NASA., First choice. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC) , This one seems ideal, (although I'd leave out the varying punctuation in the parenth). Some of the others to this effect are fine too. Shadowjams (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC), This seems OK, though I'd prefer that the "commonly called" portion appear earlier so as not to separate the statement about territorial autonomy -- my intent with my original proposal was to emphasize by juxtaposition that their autonomy was from the governing republic. older ≠ wiser 12:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)'''
::::Older - you seem to have "disremembered" your own position? For "status Quo" Mendaliv said ''Fourth choice. The debate thus far has made it clear that consensus will not be achieved to preserve the status quo. Nevertheless, it's a choice I could live with. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)'' which I suggest is not a really ravourable vote - the status quo was extraordinarily ill-worded, indeed. ] (]) 12:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::I see, you were referring to the initial round. That seems rather disingenuous as the discussion moved rapidly from those options and the options presented in the final round were significantly different. If you are claiming there was consensus for something from that initial round, you are seriously mistaken. ] ≠ ] 14:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::Huh? Using the ''specific votes'' is "disingenuous"? And I do, in fact, consider 7 to 3.1 to be pretty good for a compromise - especially when one editor appears unwilling to accept anything other than the ] in what is supposed to be a summary for ordinary readers. Cheers. ] (]) 14:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::::It seems rather bizarre to claim there was consensus for something from that initial round, especially as extensive discussion followed that initial round and a separate final round of options were presented. ] ≠ ] 14:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I've not looked at the positions or the count or, indeed, the discussion at all, but I'd like to suggest a possible way forward here. Either there was a consensus or there was not and if there was an actual consensus, someone who continues to edit or argue against it can be blocked for disruptive editing. So the practical acid test for the existence of a consensus is this: What are the chances that anyone in this discussion be taken to ] and be blocked for disruptive editing? I'm '''''not''''' suggesting that's a subject that ought to be ''discussed'' here, but everyone ought to ''ask it of themselves'': Can anyone in this discussion be, as a totally practical matter, be blocked for disruptive editing?
*If the answer is no or uncertain, then there was no consensus and the discussion of the original matter in dispute needs to be resumed rather than arguing about whether or not there was a consensus. Either continue it at the article talk page, or file some sort of new DR, but nothing productive is going to be gained by discussing whether or not there was a consensus.

*If the answer is yes, then there's also no need to further discuss this matter here: go straight to ANI and have at it.
That's how my simplistic mind sees it. Regards, ] (]) 14:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

::AFAICT, AN/I is ''not'' a place for asserting that an editor is "simply obstructing a CONSENSUS" - which means this is not a valid concept. There is a chance that using a "f" word in edit summaries, as has occurred, would get an admin's attention, but that is behavioural, and there is no doubt that such behaviour exists on the part of one editor. Would you consider such language to be improper? Cheers. ('''fucking take me to arbcom''' seems pretty clear to me - YMMV) ] (]) 21:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
:::Collect has made it clear on his talk page that he regrets getting involved and I suspect will extricate himself shortly from this process, despite my repeated efforts to come to an understanding with him. (efforts which were not once reciprocated by him; for someone so interested in dispute resolution, you'd think he'd try a touch of it in his personal interactions) So yes, either shut up or take me to arbcom, and be thankful I'm not using more colorful language. It's a word, get the fuck over it. --] (]) 22:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Decisions made in DRN cases are not binding. The final recommendation (made by me) in the ] case did not have unanimous consent of all parties - hence there was not a "consensus" in the strict meaning of the term. The final recommendation was simply based on the proposal which got the most endorsements, which is a technique that is commonly used in WP but has the downside that it is (more-or-less) voting ... which ]. If parties cannot achieve consensus in a DRN case, one path forward is to use the ] process which can be ] and may result in a semi-binding decision. --] (]) 15:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

== ] ==

By bringing this to DRN, I was '''not''' attempting to circumvent AFD. I am simply trying to resolve my questions about the notability rules. Sorry if DRN is the wrong place for that, but ANI says "To get assistance in resolving disputes, please see dispute resolution." However, I believe it '''is''' a content issue, as the notability rules are meant to establish what content is included.--] (]) 20:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

:The issue was not circumvention, but simply that DRN has (and all other dispute resolution forums also have) a rule that they are not a suitable venue for disputes pending in other forums. Some processes, such as AFD, are themselves a type of dispute resolution process in that they have a built-in resolution mechanism (in the case of AFD it's closing, usually by a sysop, and "appeal" to ]) and matters pending there are not subject to being handled at the traditional content venues. No offense taken and no apology needed. Regards, ] (]) 21:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

== Request for unarchiving discussion ==

I am sorry that I was ] that limited my time on Misplaced Pages in that I was not able to respond in a timely manor to the DRN discussion, that being said I request that the following discussion be unarchived and re-added to the active list:
*]
The discussion had not reached any ] or resolve the content dispute that was at the heart of the issue.--] (]) 18:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
:I suggest not doing so. On the basis of the discussion as it has proceeded, I have no intention of agreeing to the proposal to add material about this non-incident. Further discussion is a waste of time. One editor's persistence is insufficient reason to overcome other editors' resistance to the proposed text; RCLC can write what he wants until he is blue in the face, but for my part I have no intention of letting ] result in inclusion of this material here. The bottom line here is that there is '''no consensus''' for inclusion of the material this editor wants to add, something even RCLC concedes in his post here. ] (]) 18:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
::If the volunteers who were working on this case before it was archived want to dearchive it, they are free to do so, but it's really up to them. DRN is built around the notion that once two weeks have passed that there either needs to be fairly constant discussion (at least one post every 24 hours) in a listing or the bot will archive it. Indeed, the base philosophy of DRN is really that disputes should not really be here for two weeks at all; if they cannot get resolved in that amount of time they need to move on to ] or ] or back to the talk page. The Guide to Participants at the top of the DRN page says, "What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction." The two-week limit is there as a test for that "too complex" part (though it's not very good at the "point you in the right direction" part). Regards, ] (]) 18:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
:::I look forward to seeing what the two volunteers decide.
:::Nomoskedasticity has not provided policy based reasons why neutrally worded due weight verified content should not be added to the article. Last time I had asked that question, no response was provided.
:::If the discussion is to not reopen the the DRN discussion, based on some editors not wanting content due to non-policy/guideline/essay based rational, I will be more than happy to file a MEDCOM request.--] (]) 20:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
::::I have in fact provided a "policy-based reason" numerous times: ]. ] (]) 06:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::I do not recall ever saying that there was no consensus, we are precisely here because there was consensus, content was added per consensus, and removed by another user. Furthermore, I have shown given the wide coverage of the event how ] supports addition of content given that it has been covered in an in-depth manor from multiple reliable sources, has received persistent coverage since the time the event occurred, and that it was covered by sources from more than one nation. Therefore, the UNDUE reasoning is wrong and that some form of content belongs per DUE, and various other guidelines and policies.--] (]) 23:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

== Rules for recusal? ==

Are there any rules regarding when a volunteer should recuse from a case request or case due to previous negative interactions with one of the participants? --''']]]''' 10:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
:No, actually there are not. But there are rules about editors that refuse to conduct themselves in the manner specified by our guide. Stay civil, do not discuss editor conduct/behavior or national views. Volunteers may ask editors to leave the discussion if the conduct themselves in a manner that goes aginst our set guides of both civility and NPA. You have been warned but not yet asked to leave the discussion.--] (]) 10:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
::I am sorry, but this goes against conflict of interest guidelines that are inherent in every single principle that the English Misplaced Pages operates by. --''']]]''' 10:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
:::At the moment we do not have such guidelines. But we do have guidelines for Dispute Resolution. Please follow them.--] (]) 10:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

::::I don't care if the rules make you recuse or not - this goes against the spirit of everything that we do here on Misplaced Pages. Would it be that disadvantageous to you to step back from this particular case and let someone else handle it? --''']]]''' 10:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::An involved party makes an accusation against a volunteer for enforcing the well established rules of DR/N and feels that the volunteer should recuse themselves when the involved editor has acted in an uncivil manner. Yes, it would be disadvantageous for the noticeboard and Misplaced Pages to allow you to run rough shot over this board. I will not recuse myself at your request for your perception of bad faith, especially after your own behavior here.--] (]) 10:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

:::::Speaking as another regular dispute resolution volunteer, I can assure you that if Amadscientist recuses himself because you don't like him enforcing our rules, whoever replaces him will also enforce our rules. There is nothing in "every single principle that the English Misplaced Pages operates by" that requires us to let you violate the guidelines for Dispute Resolution. Follow them, or you will be asked you to leave the discussion. --] (]) 10:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I think if a "volunteer" has a ], even a perceived one, they should not participate in a dispute resolution. It undermines the whole thing, particularly when volunteers are rushing around telling people they will be "asked to leave the discussion". Rschen7754 is right when he says avoiding COI underpins the whole ethos of Misplaced Pages. This "noticeboard" is part of Misplaced Pages and as such should adhere to that ethos. ] (]) 11:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

:I would tend to agree if it was something that a reasonable person might perceive as a conflict of interest, but not allowing a disputant to violate the basic rules of the noticeboard is not something that a reasonable person might perceive as a conflict of interest. Saying "COI" is not a magic word that can make anyone you want go away. --] (]) 11:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
::{{ec}}I also would agree if there were an actual ''perception'' of a conflict of interest. Just pointing to a single post on my talk page from months ago that I actually ended up following does not constitute such, or even a conflict.--] (]) 11:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

::I'm not sure I said that. But it seems you "volunteers" didn't even stop to consider what the COI was, or if it exists, before hounding Rschen7754 away with your threats. Anyway, other things to do today. Ciao. ] (]) 11:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
:::Huge assumption since he left a link. It clearly did not demonstrate a COI or a conflict.--] (]) 11:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Oh no. You reviewed a GA where you had a conflict of interest. Consensus was that you should not be reviewing that article. I moved your review out of the way so that another review could take place. As I remember, you were very unhappy about that. --''']]]''' 11:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::No. I attempted to review an article for GA, where I had more contributions than I had understood under the policy for reviewing were appropriate, but I did not review the article. That is not a conflict of interest. It is not a conflict with you. The link you left to that review doesn't even show any interaction between us. Again, I have no idea what you are claiming and don't even remember you from that, other than the single post you linked which was not a negative interaction. I was not part of the article sanctions that took place there and was what I considered to be a neutral voice when I did participate on the talk page and with my edits.--] (]) 11:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

== Disputant overriding decision made by DRN volunteer ==


As we all know, many time it falls upon a dispute resolution volunteer to impose restrictions on what can and can not be discussed. In , Rschen7754 reverted such a decision. In my opinion, a party to a dispute should not be allowed to do that. --] (]) 10:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Please note that after a brief look at the newly-opened Etan Ilfeld dispute, I have removed the disputed content as a clear and unambiguous violation of ] policy. ] (]) 12:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
:From the main page: "Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Misplaced Pages." --''']]]''' 10:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
::From the Guide to particpants: ''"Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion."''.--] (]) 10:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


== Time to shut down DRN ==
::No special powers, privileges, or authority were used. Any editor can remove or collapse prohibited material. See ], section "Removing prohibited material" --] (]) 10:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
{{archive top|It seems the time is not ripe. ] (]) 05:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)}}
:::But warning someone or asking someone to leave a discussion is special powers, wouldn't you agree? --''']]]''' 10:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
::::No. I see you are an Administrator. I am pretty sure you know how this noticeboard thing works. If you don't like the rules of the venue you are welcome not to participate.--] (]) 10:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Looking back at past few weeks' activity, the rate of positive outcomes is appalling, and the waste of editors' time prodigious. This noticeboard seems like a drag on Misplaced Pages. What is the process for proposing it be shut down? ] (]) 17:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)


::::No. I do not agree. Anyone can act as a dispute resolution volunteer is a case in which they are not personally involved. It isn't a special power if everyone has it. --] (]) 10:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC) :Are you prepared to propose anything as an alternative? ] (]) 17:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
::The remaining mechanisms that do (sort of) work: Talk page discussion, noticeboards, RfCs, 3O even. ] (]) 17:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I believe that DRN does serve a purpose. DRN is to be used when talk page discussion was not successful, there might not be a dedicated noticeboard for the dispute, an RfC might be unnecessary or not the best option, and 3O is only for simple (two editor) disputes. Instead of shutting down DRN, I think we should improve it.
:::I have collected the outcomes of all DRN requests starting from April 2024 (]) and here are the results (if a single request was closed due to multiple reasons, the most significant reason was chosen here) :
:::{| class="wikitable sortable"
|+ Outcomes of all DRN requests starting from April 2024
! Outcome !! Number of requests
|-
| Ongoing || 2
|-
| Out-of-scope (conduct issue) || 2
|-
| Out-of-scope (huge dispute; consider RfC instead) || 1
|-
| Out-of-scope (other) || 4
|-
| Failure to list and notify all parties || 2
|-
| Failure to notify the parties || 3
|-
| Already pending at another forum (RfC) || 4
|-
| Already pending at another forum (SPI) || 1
|-
| Already pending at another forum (ANI) || 4
|-
| Already pending at another forum (3O) || 1
|-
| Already pending at another forum (NPOVN) || 1
|-
| Already pending at another forum (BLPN) || 1
|-
| Already pending at another forum (AE) || 1
|-
| Lack of thorough discussion on talk page || 15
|-
| Lack of ''recent'' discussion || 4
|-
| Abandoned (by filing party) || 9
|-
| Declined (by other party) || 9
|-
| ] || 1
|-
| Uncivil || 1
|-
| CIR issues || 2
|-
| Dispute between IPs || 1
|-
| style="color: #016300;"|Agreed to an RfC || 6
|-
| style="color: #016300;"| Agreed to discuss on appropriate WikiProject || 2
|-
| style="color: #016300;"| Successfully reached consensus at DRN || 1
|-
! Unsuccessful requests || 67
|-
! style="color: #016300;"| Successful requests || 9
|-
! '''All requests''' || 76+2
|}
:::We can see that there was only one request that was successfully resolved ''at'' DRN during that time, ], and even that one was questionable <small>(the IP that disagreed with 6 editors and consensus didn't agree with the outcome, but said "Feel free to close it")</small>.
:::We can also observe that the most common closure reason was the lack of thorough discussion on the talk page.
:::Considering this, I think we should come up with ideas to improve DRN including its ]. ] (]) 19:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
::::Pretty damning. The question is: how to propose deletion. I'm supposing MfD, but maybe it's something else? ] (]) 19:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::The closest thing that springs to mind is the deprecation of the User conduct RFC process, and that was an RFC at ] (). The old ] was shut down via a RFC there as well. ] (]) 19:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::I agree that that's probably the most appropriate venue for a formal motion to shutdown DRN (my own feelings on the idea are mixed at this time). It looks like that's where the discussion that led to the shutdown of ] occurred as well. ] (]) 19:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Last I checked, no one is forced to participate in the DRN process? ] (]) 19:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::That could actually be part of the problem ] (]) 20:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I suppose so, but I am not seeing the negative effect here. It is staffed by volunteers, and if you don't like it, you don't have to pay any attention to it. I can certainly see the argument that it is ineffective, but "a drag on Misplaced Pages" strikes me as inapposite. Reasonable minds can certainly differ, though. Cheers. ] (]) 20:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm not thinking of me personally, I'm thinking of wasted editor time in general. I'd rather editors "in dispute" spent time pursuing mechanisms that would likely lead to a result & improvements to the encyclopedia, rather than just spinning process wheels. This "ineffective" process is actually baked into ] policy, so it's not that easy to ignore, especially for inexperienced editors. ] (]) 03:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::It's also important to note that DRN serves a double purpose. DRN was {{Diff2|431692337|originally}} meant to be used to identify the next best DR step for a specific dispute and it still continues to do that (usually pointing to RfC's). But it also provides mediation (especially after the disbandment of MedCom). It currently serves both purposes, but the question is: should it? It might be a better idea to somehow separate these two into their own sections/noticeboards: one for figuring out the best DR step (and assisting with it, e.g. helping in writing an RfC), and one for mediation. It would still work the same way (optional participation, run by volunteers) but it might be a bit more concentrated.
:::::::::::So from the above data, we can see that most disputes (that weren't closed) ended up being referred to somewhere else (RfC, WikiProject), and actual mediation is being used less and less.
:::::::::::What do you guys think? ] (]) 09:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::This isn't a proposal, but in terms of DRN basically redirecting editors elsewhere, I wonder how much of that could be solved by updating ] accordingly. However, that's a pretty lengthy page. I wonder whether it would benefit from an easy-to-read summary. "In general, for X go to Y." Just brainstorming. ] (]) 13:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The PAGs are meant to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. Perhaps we should just describe how disputes get resolved in practice (which doesn't, it seems, involve DRN) ? ] (]) 13:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Bon courage -- but I think there's a step missing in the reasoning here. Issues end up at DRN in my (admittedly limited) experience because the normal discussion process has already stalled. Things that end up at the noticeboard are self-selecting precisely because they are already fraught. Certainly you can say that there aren't a lot of good outcomes achieved, but compared to what, exactly? Do we think the outcomes would be better for those particular disputes without DRN? I am not convinced of that. And I think DRN serves not only as a means of generating outcomes, but also one of (to overuse a trendy word) vibes. Some of DRN's successes are invisible: namely in tamping down hard feelings and providing what is, for Misplaced Pages, a fairly neutral form of mediation. Again, no one has to like or take advantage of DRN. But I cannot see how it existing as an option hurts anything. Cheers. ] (]) 13:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::In my experience, issues end up at DRN because new(ish) editors think that the process is going to result in a binding outcome that will favor their position. It doesn't, of course, because that isn't what it is designed to do. But that lack of an outcome that will definitively settle a conflict is also why experienced editors will just have an RFC instead. This is more or less the same situation that MedCom (and/or the Mediation Cabal) ended up in playing out under a new name. If DRN does get closed, we should be sure to erect a large sign informing people that going down this path once again won't be productive. ] (]) 17:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
:Is it doing any harm? ] (]) 15:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
::It's wasting time (editor time being the most precious commodity for the Project) and not achieving results. But the most convincing argument here is that it's a kind of 'labyrinth of uselessness' to lure in newbie editors so they waste their time wandering around rather than harming the wider project. ] (]) 15:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
:::On what basis are you concluding that the time is wasted, and that results are not achieved? ] (]) 15:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
::::see the table upthread. ] (]) 15:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::I knew you were going to say that :-D
:::::The table upthread says:
:::::* 71 DRN requests total since April
:::::* Of those, 58 were rejected for some procedural error (out of scope, failure to notify, pending discussion elsewhere, lack of prior discussion, lack of standing, abandoned, declined)
:::::* Of the remaining 13 that weren't rejected for some procedural error, 4 failed due to some problem during the DRN (incivility, CIR, nonspecific)
:::::* Of the 9 that actually went through the DRN process, 6 resulted in an RFC, 2 with a WikiProject discussion, and 1 achieved consensus at DRN.
:::::So why is this a waste of time, or unachieved results? It seems to me that the vast majority of DRN requests (58/71) are rejected and thus don't waste time. Of the 13 that went forward, 4 failed for some reason, and the other 9 successfully achieved a result. 9 out of 13 is an almost 70% success rate. What other processes on Misplaced Pages have a higher success rate?
:::::More the point: there are many pages on Misplaced Pages where people do things that I think is wasting their time. But if they're volunteers and this is how they choose to spend their time, then I presume ''they'' don't think their time is being wasted, so who am I to take it away from them because ''I'' think their time is being wasted?
:::::I don't think anybody's time is being wasted at DRN who doesn't ''want'' their time "wasted" at DRN, and I don't think DRN has any different success rate (almost 70%) than any other dispute resolution process on Misplaced Pages (RFC, 3O, etc.). ] (]) 15:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::If a 'success' is to use another mechanism, then that's not really DRN's success. The real number of successes here is zero. ] (]) 15:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Why not? ] (]) 15:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Because if DRN wasn't on the 'menu' of DR options, the disputants could have gone directly to an effective mechanism (RfC, noticeboard, WikiProject) directly. ] (]) 15:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Considering that 58 requests were rejected for procedural errors, do you think that people (especially newer editors) will be able to create a decent RfC if they were unable to follow DRN's rules? And there's still the issue that what if there isn't an appropriate noticeboard or the issue is out-of-scope of the related WikiProject?
:::::::::Also, let's take ] as an example. What do you think would be the best DR step here? ] (]) 15:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::The most often useful step would be for editors to accept that consensus is against them, rather than think they can keep 'rolling the dice'. But in this case there wasn't even really a 'dispute', more an unfinished Talk page discussion. ] (]) 15:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Yeah that's not how I'd look at it. If editors can't pull off an ] on their own and DRN helps them do it, that's a successful use of DRN. ''And'' DRN would be ''saving'' time, not wasting it; more time would have been wasted trying to do the RFCBEFORE on their own. ] (]) 15:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::This sounds like an argument for replacing DRN with a 'help write a good RFC' service, rather than the 'lets spend a bunch of time on mediated discussion and then have a RFC eventually anyway' service it is now. ] (]) 15:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yup, and in the case cited (which could have been an RfC maybe) we didn't even get that 'help'. The request was shut because the ] bar had not been cleared. Halpful! Replacing DRN with a "RfC before" thing is an interesting idea ] (]) 15:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Except that presupposes that an RFC is always the right outcome. If DRN can help ''avoid'' an RFC then it is ''also'' saving time, and that seems to have happened in 3 out of the 9 DRNs. In the other 6, DRN helped an RFCBEFORE. Either way, seems like it's saving time, not wasting it. ] (]) 16:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I agree. I plan to use DRN to determine if a RfC is necessary after talkpage discussion stalled. I'm afraid of opening RfCs without help because RfCs may be seen as too drastic an escalation. Out of respect for other editors, I keep in mind {{tpq|RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable}} of ]. ] (]) 14:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Part of the ways of working for the dispute resolution noticeboard, as described at the top and from what I recall in the discussions leading to its creation, is that it would direct editors to an appropriate venue for resolving a dispute, while also serving to resolve small disputes that can be handled more expeditiously. There are many editors unaware of the many different venues and thus post in the wrong ones, so I agree with the consensus of editors who supported the creation of this noticeboard that helping editors find the right venue does help overall efficiency. ] (]) 16:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Yup, that's the reason {{T|help button}} exists {{help button}}. ] (]) 16:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::{{re|Levivich}} That button has no projectspace transclusions ] the Misplaced Pages:Help_button/ prefix. ] (]) 14:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::Bon courage, with all due respect, decontextualized this way, I think the stats are not helpful. Apologies for the grim analogy, but it's a bit like going in to an oncology ward and saying "the outcomes here are so much worse than the rest of this hospital, we need to shut this place down." I'm certainly open to ways to improve the process here or to make it more transparent, but as long as the volunteers believe in the mission, I cannot see forcibly telling them to stand down. But, again, reasonable minds can differ. Cheers. 15:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 15:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::That would have been the argument to keep ] running. I'm all for shutting down useless ]. But in the end we'll need to see what the community thinks. ] (]) 15:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


== Length of statements ==
:::::Please note the conversation at ]. I have encouraged the editors who have complaints to raise their concerns in a calm, rational manner here on the DRN talk page so that we can examine the criticisms and, if needed, modify the DRN process to address them. --] (]) 00:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


Looking at the recently created section (to which I am a party), I notice that when viewing the page, "Summary of dispute by Mitch Ames" (which I have not edited yet) says "less than 2000 characters if possible", but when I edit that section (or any part of the page) the page notice says "less than 1000 words". The initial placeholder text and the page notice should be consistent. ] (]) 12:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
== Split the page ==


:Hi. I have requested a fix ]. Thank you. ] (]) 14:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Please consider subdividing the project page, so that each dispute has its own sub-page. The current page is too long, and watch listing because of interest in a single issue results in lot of irrelevant notifications, <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 19:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
::@] {{done}}<!-- Template:ETp --> <span class="nowrap">--] (])</span> 20:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks, ] (]) 09:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)


== Request step 2 - grammar errors ==
:That's been discussed by the DRN community at least three times, most recently ], and just never seems to gain much traction. Best regards, ] (]) 19:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


On ], step 2 "Types of dispute" it says:
::Perhaps another reason why this "noticeboard" gets such short shrift. Make it work better or it won't work at all. ] (]) 20:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
{{talk quote|... isn't able to assist with concerns about other editors behaviour. Is this an issue only about another editors behaviour?.}}
:::It might work better if editors would read the actual guide to participants. But, even Arbcom is not without criticism, so yes...we could do more to make things clear and make things work better, but even then we don't have full agreement on how to do that.--] (]) 22:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
There are two problems:
::::Of note: The last seven filings have been closed. That's a large portion of recent filings even if you discount the two that were withdrawn or had a resolution shortly after the filing. This shows to me that in a lot of cases, editors are simply not aware of how to make a proper filing, or at least at what point to do so. I hesitate to say we need better instruction but, perhaps we do.--] (]) 22:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
* Both instances of "editors" are possessive and require apostrophes. The first should probably "other editors' behaviour" (several editors), the second "another editor's behaviour" (one editor).
* The text ends with both a question mark and full stop, but only the former is required.
Could someone with appropriate access fix these please. ] (]) 13:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)


:Thanks for reporting this. A fix was requested ]. ] (]) 13:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::Perhaps simply making the 'Guide for participants' more prominent might help. There's a block of text in a box that's as much about volunteering as about when and how to file a case, and the collapse box for the guide almost gets lost between that and the open cases table. Most of the other noticeboards have somewhat more obvious guidance notes - in particular some have an 'are you in the right place?' section which I think is quite helpful. Of course, there's a balance to be struck between making it more obvious and not taking up too much space; possibly keeping most of the content collapsed, but splitting it into several boxes with more explanatory headings might be a happy medium. ] (]) 23:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::I think CarrieVS has a very good point, and that the suggested changes should be implemented. I also would like to see more automation. Someone should not be able to file a case without naming any disputants, to pick one example. --] (]) 00:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:39, 18 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dispute resolution noticeboard page.
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, 33Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
? view · edit Frequently asked questions
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconDispute Resolution (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis page 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
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?
  • Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.
Q8. Are there any requirements for volunteering?
  • No. All editors on Misplaced Pages 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 contributors.
Q13. The other editor refuses to discuss. What should I do?
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconDispute Resolution (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis page 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

Etan Ilfeld

Please note that after a brief look at the newly-opened Etan Ilfeld dispute, I have removed the disputed content as a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Time to shut down DRN

It seems the time is not ripe. Bon courage (talk) 05:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Looking back at past few weeks' activity, the rate of positive outcomes is appalling, and the waste of editors' time prodigious. This noticeboard seems like a drag on Misplaced Pages. What is the process for proposing it be shut down? Bon courage (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you prepared to propose anything as an alternative? DonIago (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The remaining mechanisms that do (sort of) work: Talk page discussion, noticeboards, RfCs, 3O even. Bon courage (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I believe that DRN does serve a purpose. DRN is to be used when talk page discussion was not successful, there might not be a dedicated noticeboard for the dispute, an RfC might be unnecessary or not the best option, and 3O is only for simple (two editor) disputes. Instead of shutting down DRN, I think we should improve it.
I have collected the outcomes of all DRN requests starting from April 2024 (starting here) and here are the results (if a single request was closed due to multiple reasons, the most significant reason was chosen here) :
Outcomes of all DRN requests starting from April 2024
Outcome Number of requests
Ongoing 2
Out-of-scope (conduct issue) 2
Out-of-scope (huge dispute; consider RfC instead) 1
Out-of-scope (other) 4
Failure to list and notify all parties 2
Failure to notify the parties 3
Already pending at another forum (RfC) 4
Already pending at another forum (SPI) 1
Already pending at another forum (ANI) 4
Already pending at another forum (3O) 1
Already pending at another forum (NPOVN) 1
Already pending at another forum (BLPN) 1
Already pending at another forum (AE) 1
Lack of thorough discussion on talk page 15
Lack of recent discussion 4
Abandoned (by filing party) 9
Declined (by other party) 9
Nonspecific 1
Uncivil 1
CIR issues 2
Dispute between IPs 1
Agreed to an RfC 6
Agreed to discuss on appropriate WikiProject 2
Successfully reached consensus at DRN 1
Unsuccessful requests 67
Successful requests 9
All requests 76+2
We can see that there was only one request that was successfully resolved at DRN during that time, this one, and even that one was questionable (the IP that disagreed with 6 editors and consensus didn't agree with the outcome, but said "Feel free to close it").
We can also observe that the most common closure reason was the lack of thorough discussion on the talk page.
Considering this, I think we should come up with ideas to improve DRN including its request form. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Pretty damning. The question is: how to propose deletion. I'm supposing MfD, but maybe it's something else? Bon courage (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The closest thing that springs to mind is the deprecation of the User conduct RFC process, and that was an RFC at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals) (). The old Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee was shut down via a RFC there as well. MrOllie (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree that that's probably the most appropriate venue for a formal motion to shutdown DRN (my own feelings on the idea are mixed at this time). It looks like that's where the discussion that led to the shutdown of WP:WQA occurred as well. DonIago (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Last I checked, no one is forced to participate in the DRN process? Dumuzid (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
That could actually be part of the problem Bon courage (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I suppose so, but I am not seeing the negative effect here. It is staffed by volunteers, and if you don't like it, you don't have to pay any attention to it. I can certainly see the argument that it is ineffective, but "a drag on Misplaced Pages" strikes me as inapposite. Reasonable minds can certainly differ, though. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not thinking of me personally, I'm thinking of wasted editor time in general. I'd rather editors "in dispute" spent time pursuing mechanisms that would likely lead to a result & improvements to the encyclopedia, rather than just spinning process wheels. This "ineffective" process is actually baked into WP:DR policy, so it's not that easy to ignore, especially for inexperienced editors. Bon courage (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
It's also important to note that DRN serves a double purpose. DRN was originally meant to be used to identify the next best DR step for a specific dispute and it still continues to do that (usually pointing to RfC's). But it also provides mediation (especially after the disbandment of MedCom). It currently serves both purposes, but the question is: should it? It might be a better idea to somehow separate these two into their own sections/noticeboards: one for figuring out the best DR step (and assisting with it, e.g. helping in writing an RfC), and one for mediation. It would still work the same way (optional participation, run by volunteers) but it might be a bit more concentrated.
So from the above data, we can see that most disputes (that weren't closed) ended up being referred to somewhere else (RfC, WikiProject), and actual mediation is being used less and less.
What do you guys think? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 09:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
This isn't a proposal, but in terms of DRN basically redirecting editors elsewhere, I wonder how much of that could be solved by updating WP:DR accordingly. However, that's a pretty lengthy page. I wonder whether it would benefit from an easy-to-read summary. "In general, for X go to Y." Just brainstorming. DonIago (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
The PAGs are meant to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. Perhaps we should just describe how disputes get resolved in practice (which doesn't, it seems, involve DRN) ? Bon courage (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Bon courage -- but I think there's a step missing in the reasoning here. Issues end up at DRN in my (admittedly limited) experience because the normal discussion process has already stalled. Things that end up at the noticeboard are self-selecting precisely because they are already fraught. Certainly you can say that there aren't a lot of good outcomes achieved, but compared to what, exactly? Do we think the outcomes would be better for those particular disputes without DRN? I am not convinced of that. And I think DRN serves not only as a means of generating outcomes, but also one of (to overuse a trendy word) vibes. Some of DRN's successes are invisible: namely in tamping down hard feelings and providing what is, for Misplaced Pages, a fairly neutral form of mediation. Again, no one has to like or take advantage of DRN. But I cannot see how it existing as an option hurts anything. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
In my experience, issues end up at DRN because new(ish) editors think that the process is going to result in a binding outcome that will favor their position. It doesn't, of course, because that isn't what it is designed to do. But that lack of an outcome that will definitively settle a conflict is also why experienced editors will just have an RFC instead. This is more or less the same situation that MedCom (and/or the Mediation Cabal) ended up in playing out under a new name. If DRN does get closed, we should be sure to erect a large sign informing people that going down this path once again won't be productive. MrOllie (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Is it doing any harm? Levivich (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
It's wasting time (editor time being the most precious commodity for the Project) and not achieving results. But the most convincing argument here is that it's a kind of 'labyrinth of uselessness' to lure in newbie editors so they waste their time wandering around rather than harming the wider project. Bon courage (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
On what basis are you concluding that the time is wasted, and that results are not achieved? Levivich (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
see the table upthread. Bon courage (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
I knew you were going to say that :-D
The table upthread says:
  • 71 DRN requests total since April
  • Of those, 58 were rejected for some procedural error (out of scope, failure to notify, pending discussion elsewhere, lack of prior discussion, lack of standing, abandoned, declined)
  • Of the remaining 13 that weren't rejected for some procedural error, 4 failed due to some problem during the DRN (incivility, CIR, nonspecific)
  • Of the 9 that actually went through the DRN process, 6 resulted in an RFC, 2 with a WikiProject discussion, and 1 achieved consensus at DRN.
So why is this a waste of time, or unachieved results? It seems to me that the vast majority of DRN requests (58/71) are rejected and thus don't waste time. Of the 13 that went forward, 4 failed for some reason, and the other 9 successfully achieved a result. 9 out of 13 is an almost 70% success rate. What other processes on Misplaced Pages have a higher success rate?
More the point: there are many pages on Misplaced Pages where people do things that I think is wasting their time. But if they're volunteers and this is how they choose to spend their time, then I presume they don't think their time is being wasted, so who am I to take it away from them because I think their time is being wasted?
I don't think anybody's time is being wasted at DRN who doesn't want their time "wasted" at DRN, and I don't think DRN has any different success rate (almost 70%) than any other dispute resolution process on Misplaced Pages (RFC, 3O, etc.). Levivich (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
If a 'success' is to use another mechanism, then that's not really DRN's success. The real number of successes here is zero. Bon courage (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Why not? Levivich (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Because if DRN wasn't on the 'menu' of DR options, the disputants could have gone directly to an effective mechanism (RfC, noticeboard, WikiProject) directly. Bon courage (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Considering that 58 requests were rejected for procedural errors, do you think that people (especially newer editors) will be able to create a decent RfC if they were unable to follow DRN's rules? And there's still the issue that what if there isn't an appropriate noticeboard or the issue is out-of-scope of the related WikiProject?
Also, let's take this dispute as an example. What do you think would be the best DR step here? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
The most often useful step would be for editors to accept that consensus is against them, rather than think they can keep 'rolling the dice'. But in this case there wasn't even really a 'dispute', more an unfinished Talk page discussion. Bon courage (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah that's not how I'd look at it. If editors can't pull off an WP:RFCBEFORE on their own and DRN helps them do it, that's a successful use of DRN. And DRN would be saving time, not wasting it; more time would have been wasted trying to do the RFCBEFORE on their own. Levivich (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
This sounds like an argument for replacing DRN with a 'help write a good RFC' service, rather than the 'lets spend a bunch of time on mediated discussion and then have a RFC eventually anyway' service it is now. MrOllie (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Yup, and in the case cited (which could have been an RfC maybe) we didn't even get that 'help'. The request was shut because the WP:BURO bar had not been cleared. Halpful! Replacing DRN with a "RfC before" thing is an interesting idea Bon courage (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Except that presupposes that an RFC is always the right outcome. If DRN can help avoid an RFC then it is also saving time, and that seems to have happened in 3 out of the 9 DRNs. In the other 6, DRN helped an RFCBEFORE. Either way, seems like it's saving time, not wasting it. Levivich (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree. I plan to use DRN to determine if a RfC is necessary after talkpage discussion stalled. I'm afraid of opening RfCs without help because RfCs may be seen as too drastic an escalation. Out of respect for other editors, I keep in mind RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable of WP:RFCBEFORE. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Part of the ways of working for the dispute resolution noticeboard, as described at the top and from what I recall in the discussions leading to its creation, is that it would direct editors to an appropriate venue for resolving a dispute, while also serving to resolve small disputes that can be handled more expeditiously. There are many editors unaware of the many different venues and thus post in the wrong ones, so I agree with the consensus of editors who supported the creation of this noticeboard that helping editors find the right venue does help overall efficiency. isaacl (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Yup, that's the reason {{help button}} exists Help!. Levivich (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
@Levivich: That button has no projectspace transclusions outside the Misplaced Pages:Help_button/ prefix. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Bon courage, with all due respect, decontextualized this way, I think the stats are not helpful. Apologies for the grim analogy, but it's a bit like going in to an oncology ward and saying "the outcomes here are so much worse than the rest of this hospital, we need to shut this place down." I'm certainly open to ways to improve the process here or to make it more transparent, but as long as the volunteers believe in the mission, I cannot see forcibly telling them to stand down. But, again, reasonable minds can differ. Cheers. 15:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC) Dumuzid (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
That would have been the argument to keep WP:MEDCOM running. I'm all for shutting down useless WP:BURO. But in the end we'll need to see what the community thinks. Bon courage (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Length of statements

Looking at the recently created Lydham Hall section (to which I am a party), I notice that when viewing the page, "Summary of dispute by Mitch Ames" (which I have not edited yet) says "less than 2000 characters if possible", but when I edit that section (or any part of the page) the page notice says "less than 1000 words". The initial placeholder text and the page notice should be consistent. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I have requested a fix here. Thank you. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
@Kovcszaln6  Done --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Mitch Ames (talk) 09:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Request step 2 - grammar errors

On Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request, step 2 "Types of dispute" it says:

... isn't able to assist with concerns about other editors behaviour. Is this an issue only about another editors behaviour?.

There are two problems:

  • Both instances of "editors" are possessive and require apostrophes. The first should probably "other editors' behaviour" (several editors), the second "another editor's behaviour" (one editor).
  • The text ends with both a question mark and full stop, but only the former is required.

Could someone with appropriate access fix these please. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this. A fix was requested here. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)