Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Counting towards consensus

The comments in the editnotice thread have got me thinking. Is it a good idea for DRN comments to count towards consensus, or should we do it differently? It would make it easier for neutral editors to come over here from 3O if things worked in a similar fashion on both boards. I also think this could become increasingly important if/when we go through with Steven Zhang's idea of a unified page where all WP content disputes are listed. Personally, I can see advantages and disadvantages to this, but I just thought I'd throw the idea out there to see what people think. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^♫ 04:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I would think that comments by uninvolved parties should bear more weight when trying to assess consensus. People with more emotional distance from a heated arguement will, on the balance, tend to present a more level-headed opinion, and I would think that's the whole idea behind using these boards to generate consensus for solving a dispute. --Jayron32 06:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I more or less agree with Jayron32, although there is a point where the positive aspect of being an uninvolved voice can be outweighed by a lack of familiarity with the subject matter (if that is indeed the case). -- Scjessey (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that not counting works well with 3O because a third opinion could otherwise come across as having too much weight. With 3O an opinion-giver is not trying to build consensus through negotiation but is instead doing something very much like a judge by saying who's right and who's wrong. While doing just that is one of the tools on our tool belt here at DRN, it's just one tool while another tool can be to lend our weight to one side or the other of a budding consensus. A third tool can be to engage in mediation-like negotiation, but the other tools can be equally effective in the right circumstances. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think using counting discussion at DRN towards consensus is a good idea. It's kinda pointless otherwise. On another note, since my RFA is over, I really want to get into gear this idea of a unified page for all content disputes. The work in progress is at User:Steven Zhang/Dispute Resolution desk. Let's kick things up a notch, shall we? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Zoophilia dispute

Why isn't anyone helping to solve the dispute over the zoophilia article? Where are the volunteers?Plateau99 (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

While I understand your anxiety, I recommend allowing other users time to fully comprehend the issue before getting involved. "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step" - Laozi. fg 03:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Advice on the MMA Notability discussion

It's been a while since I've handled a dispute like this. Any advice the other clerks would be willing to share to help get this to a conclusion would be great. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 13:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

DR Mailing list

I've proposed the creation of a mailing list for Wikipedia dispute resolution, where I mainly see it as a place we can discuss ways we can resolve content disputes, as well as ideas. The bugzilla request is here, but we need to get a consensus here that such a list is a good idea. I know some of you are already in the email thread that I have going, but I think a proper list more than a few can imput on would be a better idea. Thoughts? 03:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I oppose this completely. On wiki issues should be resolved on wiki, unless it deals with matters which require privacy (ArbCom/Checkuser issues, etc.) or other sensitive matters. I can't see where such a mailing list would be superior to, say, discussing matters here openly. What needs to be said in a mailing list that cannot be said on wiki? --Jayron32 03:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Mailing list is more designed to be a think tank for ideas on the DR process as opposed to actually working on disputes (like private mediation). I agree that on-wiki discussion is a good idea, but don't see the problem with a mailing list discussing ideas as well. Our main wikipedia mailing list exists yet we still discuss stuff on Wikipedia. This would work a little bit similar. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm still unclear about the need to keep this off wiki. I don't work well with mailing lists, and I'd hate for people, some of whom may not even know of such a list, to be kept "out of the loop" regarding developments here. Lots of people with many things to contribute to such a "think tank", I would rather see the effort spent maintaining a Wikiproject or something similar rather than a mailing list, which can easily become small and insular. Again, my objection is that unless there is compelling need to keep such work off wiki, it should be done on wiki. --Jayron32 04:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

As long as we can get a way to get lots of ideas together in a central place, I don't mind how we do it. A wikiproject would work too. Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I would not be prepared to participate in an off-wiki capacity. Even the mere existence of an off-wiki mailing list, irrespective of whether or not it is solely for ideas, would open us up for unfounded charges of off-wiki collusion in dispute resolution. I prefer the absolute transparency of a talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Or even justified charges of off-wiki collusion! Leaky Caldron 17:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Like the other respondents, I oppose the creation of any off-wiki system (particularly a mailing list which collects and publishes email addresses and may reveal the IP address of participants), except for the very small number of existing systems that are required for confidentiality. What DR needs is firmer control whereby after an editor is told three times that they are not going the right way, they face escalating blocks (no idea how to achieve that without the traditional and exhaustive talking, but an off-wiki extension to encourage further back-and-forth would not help). Johnuniq (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I'm remembering the leak of admin email that occurred a while back, that left a very bad taste in my mouth. I think it is very important for discussions about disputes to be as transparent as possible. The project notion seems a better approach, does anyone have any concerns about that approach? --Nuujinn (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

We've already created a WikiProject, Wikiproject Dispute Resolution, fwiw. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Doh, but cool beans. Sorry to be late to the party, --Nuujinn (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Disputes have (at least) two sides

The template for posting a new request allows only the initiating party to frame the dispute. I think that's a significant problem. Every dispute has at least two sides, and it would be more neutral to allow each side to get equal opportunity to describe the dispute. I suggest reworking the template to create more equity between the disputants.   Will Beback  talk  21:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Will Beback, that's an interesting idea. On the one hand, I agree that both sides of a dispute need to be taken into consideration when trying to resolve them. However, at the moment, it seems that we are able to resolve disputes without having to formally ascertain the positions of both sides. When the initial statement given is very one-sided, the mediators here are generally able to work neutrally without being influenced by the one-sided introduction. Giving both parties the opportunity to give their initial position is often done in more formal resolution, such as at MedCab and MedCom, because it is necessary there. I think that, if a dispute gets to the stage where the position of both parties needs to be established before discussion can take place, it is beyond the scope of the DRN and needs to be elevated to more formal dispute resolution. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I was involved in some issues which were brought here recently and I thought the initial descriptions were not accurate but there was no obvious way of dealing with that problem. I can't see how this is a proper way to settle disputes, and it's not how other dispute resolution procedures are handled. Is there a problem with fixing this procedure?   Will Beback  talk  01:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

If there's no other comments I'll start working on restructuring the template to allow for more equitable presentations. I'll paste a condensed version here for review.   Will Beback  talk  05:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

How were you thinking of structuring it? I'm all for new innovations, but I would be wary of things that make the filing process here more complex. I'm already feeling guilty for making the posting process hard to understand, and we do have a fair number of formatting errors with the template when new disputes are posted. I think posting comments from both/all sides would make the task here easier for neutral parties, but I do agree with ItsZippy that neutrals haven't done that terrible a job of discerning what is neutral or not in past disputes here. (But then I have been a heavy contributor here, so I would say that.) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^♫ 08:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I just posted my first DRN request and found the process straightforward. Whether my description of the dispute is unduly biased I'll let ya'll decide. Gerardw (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Mr Stradivarius. Typically we have one editor that feels sufficiently agreived that it would be a heroic effort to present a neutral explanation of the sitaution. It's assumed that when the other disputants respond, they'll explain why they have the dispute. It's like the initial filing of a Lawsuit, it's always presented to have a very strong case for the initiator of the case. Hasteur (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This process should be as little like a lawsuit as possible. But even in lawsuits, the parties have equal opportunity to describe their case. With the current template, the initiator creates a wall of text, subsections, and diffs. The responder is not given an equal opportunity to present a different view, but instead is relegated to normal postings. Rather creating two walls of text, it'd probably be better to reduce the size of the current template while creating a slot for the respondent.

Separately, the filing should probably not be considered complete and ready for input from other editors until the respondent has add their side. It's not good dispute resolution practice to have people offering opinions about a dispute after having only seen one side of it.   Will Beback  talk  21:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

What you're suggesting sounds like an arbitration, with the same potential for unwieldy, complex cases without the consistent editor power (arbs) to manage the cases. As well every DR Notice Board, and all of the NB are DR notice board's in essence, should follow the same process, given your comments. How could see your suggestion working given these concerns?(olive (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC))

I'm not aware of any other dispute resolution procedure, except AE, which has anything like the elaborate template used on this board. And AE is not a dispute resolution board so much an enforcement board.   Will Beback  talk  21:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and you're not the first person to point out the template's complexity, either. There was no template on this board originally; I only created it because the previous pre-load text created a subsection called "discussion". This "discussion" would be the only thing that showed up on the watchlist, so it was impossible for editors to follow their specific dispute without loading up the actual noticeboard page. I think the end result might have been better for my template-writing skills than for actually resolving disputes here though. I think your suggestion is worth a try; we can certainly test it out to see if the results are easier to deal with than the present system. If I'm understanding this right, it would involve ditching the template completely, and going back to doing everything with preload text. Let's draw up an example of how this would work, so that it will be easier for people to see what it will look like. Feel free to use Template:NewDRNsubmission/testboard and Template:NewDRNsubmission/preload to test things out, as it will save setting up a new test environment. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 22:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I can certainly see why a template is helpful. My objection is just to the way it's designed to be completed by only one of the parties to the dispute. Thanks for pointing me to the test pages. I'll work on some revisions there and come back here when I've got something to show.   Will Beback  talk  23:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I just thought of another relevant point. Not all of the threads that get posted here are actual disputes - many are just problems that editors run across with other users during the course of normal editing. If we required a statement from both/all sides of a dispute before a thread could be replied to, then threads that aren't real disputes might not get replied to at all. We could always send them on to another noticeboard, of course, but that sounds a bit bureaucratic, and contrary to the rationale for setting up this noticeboard in the first place. Maybe the real issue is that this noticeboard has been trying to deal with too many complex disputes here, rather than just forwarding them on to higher forms of dispute resolution. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, I went back and tried to find the dispute that you were talking about. It looks like it was this one - correct me if I'm wrong. The filer certainly didn't keep his overview short, and I agree that that is a problem. I remember CarolMooreDC saying above that we should introduce a word limit to the template, and this thread has got me thinking that we should revisit this idea. I can have a go at making the changes to the template myself if you like - I like doing that kind of stuff. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, forget that - it looks like there is a technical issue that means that string parsing (counting, truncating, etc.) only works up to the first 500 characters, including spaces. That seems too short for our purposes here - shame. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I stand on this at the moment... I see the benefit of allowing other users to present their case, but that seems overly-bureaucratic to me. When a one-sided description of a dispute is posted, the mediators here tend to be able to extract the actual dispute. I think that stalling discussion waiting for a counter-statement is unnecessary when a mediator can quickly make an opening statement themselves, briefly outlining what needs to be discussed and establishing a neutral summary. Perhaps mediators should be able to insert a 'mediator summary' type of thing at the top of a case, giving a neutral outline when one is missing. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No offense, but I think that if mediators are opining after hearing just one side of a dispute then they are not being fair to the other disputants.   Will Beback  talk  23:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to chip in here, I am not really sure as to whether it is necessary to add or require two sides from the get-go. I think the volunteers here are able to sort the wheat from the chaff, and realise that how the user that presents the dispute here may quite well be presenting it from their POV. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 21:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Steven. Part of the commitment to being a dispute resolutionist must be a firm commitment to neutrality. While true neutrality is, admittedly, never entirely possible — we all carry some baggage regardless of how much we would like to leave it behind — it's our job to try to not let one side influence us before we get the full story from both sides. Then and only then can we fairly evaluate the dispute and act to try to resolve it. About the only exception to that is where the listing editor is so clearly in violation of policy, or policy otherwise applies so strongly, that no reply is needed because independent policy considerations overwhelm whatever was being complained about. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to be fair to both sides if you're commenting based on what you've only read from one side. Disputes can be complex, and even simple ones can be described in a very slanted way. I'm finding it a bit astonishing that editors here are pushing back against the concept of hearing both sides before giving their opinions abut a dispute. If this were a conventional noticebaord, with a clearly limited scope, like RSN, that approach might make some sense. But the idea that a dispute typically involves only one POV is fundamentally wrong.   Will Beback  talk  23:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Mediators here to not comment based on only what they read here. At the very least, I would expect a mediator to read the appropriate talk page and article history. That should allow them to find a reasonable, neutral position. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

But comments are not limited to mediators. Anyone may comment with no assurance that they've read anything more than the first post by the initial petitioner. If we're going to give that petitioner so much space to detail the dispute, I don't understand why there'd be a reluctance to give other parties to the dispute equal opportunities. Presumably, this noticeboard is not for causal, easily solved disputes, like wheter a source is reliable. If this noticeboard is intended for more careful consideration, then there's no need to rush ahead before all sides have been heard.   Will Beback  talk  06:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Will, no one's saying that they're not willing to take a look at what you have in mind. Do a test draft on one of the subpages and drop a note and pointer to it here when you're ready for it to be reviewed by the DRN community. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Poor quality articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject My Little Pony

Discussion placed back on project place, currently here. Not appropriate topic for Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard.

I am deeply concerned of what I see is a proliferation of poor quality articles such as Spike (My Little Pony) , Minty (My Little Pony), Starsong (My Little Pony) which little to no third person sources to support their notability. Wikipedia:WikiProject My Little Pony seems to an inclusionist excuse to be their own personal fan wiki rather than creating veritable quality articles. 08:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Dwanyewest (talk) Given that there are articles like Wood, Walton. "The Empirical Twilight: A Pony's Guide to Science & Anarchism." ImageTexT: Interdisciplinary Comics Studies. 6.1 (2011): n. pag. Dept of English, University of Florida. 18 December 2011. Web. in double blind peer reviewed journals, many of these characters may be more verifiable than you realise. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC) The Onus is on the person who created the My Little Pony individual characters but refuse or won't do anything to add sources to justify the articles. That's the problem with inclusionism its easy to create articles but next to impossible to get rid of poor or unnecessary articles. If you are prepare to create the articles you should be justify it. "The Empirical Twilight: A Pony's Guide to Science & Anarchism." ImageTexT: Interdisciplinary Comics Studies. 6.1 (2011): n. pag. Dept of English, University of Florida. 18 December 2011 is not gonna cover all the characters so far. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC) PROD and AfD exist to challenge the retention of articles you find to be of dubious notability. In my view, there's not much article-space competition for the name Spike (My Little Pony) and I'm happy enough to see such fancruft exist there. But as your milage varies, I suggest you take one of the article to AfD to see what the community thinks. (This all presupposes you've tried to engage with the little pony community. If you have not, you might wish to, perhaps suggesting that they confine their nags to a List of my little pony characters article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC) re the Walton Wood paper, that is indeed a surprising level of serious commentary on MLP. However that's still only a source for the content it includes, and where it's cited. These articles are a long way beyond that in places, with serious in-universe problems. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC) I fear it will be pointless discussing these problems with the MLP community or using AFD'S as they will be ignored see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minty (My Little Pony) and be filled with fansites with aren't reliable sources or articles which have little to do with the indvidual characters they are supposed to be discussing. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC) I am going start the ball rolling by maybe nominating some these dreadful characters and no fansites don't count as reliable sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC) Fanbois & girls do not get the option to ignore the outcomes of AfDs. If a merge is the outcome, then we need to serve notice that the substantive article will be changed to a redirect to the "list of" article, make the change, and then keep the redirect page on watchlists lest it be reverted. I'll start to do this this evening (about 3 hours time, I think). If you know of other AfDs with merge or delete outcomes which have not been acted on, list them here and we'll start dealing with them. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC) Question Could someone please point me in the direction of discussion about Dispute Resolution Noticeboard? I know that people have their own worlds that they express fanatical interest in, but opening a discussion here is not productive and is opening a battlefield mentality. Now if a DRN posting citing disregard for the previous consensus of merging was opened, we could have a discussion. Hasteur (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC) I believe Dwanyewest has had run-ins with the brony community - I've certainly seen him on List of My Little Pony characters (which I have on my watchlist because I must have sinned in a previous life). The problem is he hasn't formatted this correctly to pick up which editors and include diffs. Dwanye, just redirect all the articles to the list article - that's what it's there for, and if they argue, take it to AfD. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC) I concur — including the remark about past life sins — and would note that while this discussion could, indeed, probably be taking place at a better location, brony issues have popped up here at DRN at least twice (here and here). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC) My question was driving at why the idea was being hatched on the DRN Talk page instead of at other locations. Per the talk page notice The purpose of this page is to discuss Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. If your post is about a specific problem you have, please ask for help at the Wikipedia:Help desk or see the New Contributors' Help Page. My main concern was potentially being used as a co-ordination site for target actions (Much like Article Rescue Squadron) and possibly being branded as a anti-MLP hangout. Hasteur (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary definition case

Why are the claims of the 2 groups not labelled neutrally? One group is described as making False claims, while the other Correct claims. Both groups are making 'claims'. GoodDay (talk) 05:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the user edited their submission manually after their initial post. I haven't checked the edit history, but it isn't possible to make a submission look like that by just using the {{NewDRNsubmission}} template. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^♫ 06:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The listing user just copied the header from the previous section and edited as needed. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"Clerk comment"

Several editors begin their statements with "Clerk comment". I did not understand the meaning of "clerk" in this context, so I asked Steven Zhang about this. From Steven Zhang's reply, I infer that it is used to mean "Uninvolved editor's comment". However this is not the meaning of "clerk". Indeed the use of the word "clerk" implies a degree of authority greater than that of a regular editor.

Therefore I ask all editors to avoid the use of the phrase "Clerk comment". It is confusing and incorrect. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that was the only use by me of "Clerk comment" but I'm happy to not use it. Dunno why I started in the first place, tbh... Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 23:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You're probably a little confused as to why I've used "clerk comment" on some of my comments and not on others. The reason I do that is to differentiate between when I'm talking to a specific member of the discussion and when I'm leaving a long post for the whole group that is easy to find and pull quotes from if necessary. I didn't realize it bothered people, but I'll stop using it if that is the case. I would like to point out, however, that there is a reminder at the very top of the page reminding people that clerks have no authority ("Being a "clerk" on this page is not formal in any respect; the user should merely be able to demonstrate some ability or past experience in dispute resolution in order to assist in the smooth flow of the noticeboard."), and that if you look at my posts, whenever I make a point of trying to move things forward, I am always careful to note that I have no enforcement power or special authority. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I admit that I missed that statement at the top of the page. Nonetheless, the fact that I was confused by it implies that other readers may be confused too. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I just created a template that could be used instead of "clerk comment" etc. - you can find it at Template:Comment from uninvolved editor. (Shortcut is {{cue}}.) An example follows:

(Comment from uninvolved editor) This is an example of a comment from an uninvolved editor.

Feel free to use it or not as you see fit, and if you want any other features then just ask (or feel free to put them in yourself). — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

In my mind the "Clerk's Comment" was a way to signify who was going to be the primary "mediator" for the situation and to keep the discussion on topic and focused down the path of solving the problem rather than letting it fester and become something that the more advanced forms of DR have to step in to fix. Hasteur (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The "Purpose of this Noticeboard" section of the main page explains the role of mediator/clerks and makes use of the prefixes "Clerk's Comment" or "Clerk's Note" or my "I am a mediator/clerk here at DRN" perfectly acceptable when properly used:

DRN is open to comments and assistance by all. It is also monitored by mediators/clerks who can assist in inquiries and ensure that discussions don't get out of hand. They can also direct users to the best area for resolving their disputes, if a quick resolution here is not viable. Being a "clerk" on this page is not formal in any respect; the user should merely be able to demonstrate some ability or past experience in dispute resolution in order to assist in the smooth flow of the noticeboard.

My use of the term does not claim any additional authority, but it does assert that I have some "ability or past experience in dispute resolution." (That is, of course, a self-assessment which the parties are free to adjudge for themselves.) It also implies that I'm a neutral party in the case. When a person not listed as one of the parties in a dispute joins the dispute I feel it puts an unfair burden on other neutral parties considering whether to join in the dispute to have to figure out whether the unlisted party has entered the discussion as a neutral party or as someone who was involved with the dispute but who was not listed by the party who started the listing, so I make an express declaration of my role. In the past, I used the phrase "I am a neutral in this dispute," but some folks felt that was confusing, so I started using the term assigned by the noticeboard, "mediator/clerk". Though I try to use the term "clerk's note/comment" for more administrative type things, if some other neutral has already used clerk to mean neutral in a dispute, I will follow that usage (as I did in the Osteopathic Medicine in the United States listing) to avoid confusion within that dispute. Though I think the term "mediator/clerk" is both a bit clumsy and misleading for a different reason (we don't only do strictly-defined mediation here, that's the role of MedCab and MedCom), I'm fine with it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

One thing that we should probably bear in mind is that in our hectic wiki-world not everyone has the time to read the header to every noticeboard, and so I would not be surprised if quite a few people thought being a "clerk" brought some kind of special privilege. I do agree that saying something to indicate that you are a neutral party is very useful though, and I have caused confusion on more than one occasion when I have omitted it. I have provided one way around this above with the {{cue}} template, although this does not indicate whether a user has experience with dispute resolution or with this noticeboard. We could always have another similar template especially for clerk comments, that includes a link to a description of a clerk's role and things that users should expect from them. However, I'm torn on this, as though it would be clearer, it could put off other uninvolved editors from commenting. Part of the function of this noticeboard is recruiting new mediators, after all. (Not sure if that last part is actually written down anywhere? If it isn't, it should be.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sssshh!! You'll give away my super secret master plan! (Yes, this board is designed to help resolve disputes and get people involved in DR, and train em up for bigger things :)) Was one of the many reasons I created DRN :) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 09:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Axl's point and, although it's not a problem, it could be misleading. I rarely refer to myself as a clerk (I can't remember if I ever have - probably, at some point) and will do so if I am carrying out clerkish duties (fixing things, making comments to better inform the discussion, rather than post my own opinion). Generally I've not used anything (occasionally I will say that I am a mediator if there has been extensive discussion between involved editors already and it would be helpful to distinguish my uninvolved comments. I'd never thought of {{cue}}, but I'll use it where necessary in future. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I'm going to start using (Comment/Administrative note from neutral and uninvolved editor who is experienced in dispute resolution but who does not have any more authority here at this noticeboard or any more authority to advise upon or decide disputes than any other editor here at Wikipedia, who isn't even an administrator, and who indeed has a tendency to overemphasize the role and importance of policy and be something of a Wikilawyer and who is, incidentally, a real lawyer and you may not want to listen to him just on general principles or because you dislike lawyers:) I think that just about covers it, don't you? Or do I need to include something about my edit count? Your faithful colleague, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

(Comment from good-looking editor with over 12,000 edits) I'd have no problem with that. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

How does (Comment from one of the most experienced, revolututionary mediators on all of Wikipedia) look? Not that it needs a citation or anything.it is the truth, after all. :p Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 01:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm afraid we're having more fun than is allowed at Wikipedia here. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Bah, humbug. I'm no fan of them myself, but I think we have better things to do than pick at little things like that. If they're problems, deal with them on a case by case basis. No need to tear down people's userpages over it. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 05:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Taking a break, just FYI all.

Hi All. Sorry to run, but I'm taking a bit of a sanity break :-) (It's been a busy few months since May, especially in dispute resolution. Over the next few weeks I'm working on a few proposals, including the dispute resolution survey, and on-wiki stuff is interfering with my limited amount of free time. If y'all could take over from any of the threads I've been commenting on that'd be appreciated. I'm still available via email, but won't be checking my talk page. Cheers all, have a good one :) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 05:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI and WP:DR

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents has been nominated for deletion. Please join the discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The MfD has been withdrawn so the discussion has moved to this page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Move Sample Case drop down

Suggest moving sample case drop down to just below Initiate a New Discussion for ease of reference and it makes better sense in a user freindly way. Any issues with that? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Alternative move or copy dropdown inside the Initiate New Discussion page: Editing Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard (new section) add (Example Case Dropdown, also provided) to the link. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've implemented your first suggestion, and I might look at implementing the second one too when I get some spare time. Thanks for letting us know about it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Expert requests

Should we allow the use of {{expert}} tags in discussions here, such as was done in this edit? I'm of two minds on the issue. The purpose of the tag is to set a listing in Category:Articles needing expert attention. While I'm not opposed to expert help (within the substantial limits that WP imposes upon experts here at WP), discussions here move along so quickly that I doubt that the tag would attract expert attention in time to do any good. Unless, moreover, someone remembers to deactivate the tag when closing a discussion it's going to create a false listing in that it's continuing to ask for expert input in a discussion which has been closed. On the other hand, it helps avoid canvassing of experts to support a disputant's position by creating a neutral request. Though I can see both sides, I'm inclined to prohibit them (by changing the project guidelines). What do you think? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

IMO, Either they want a neutral editor to help them sort out a dispute, or they want to use an expert to help them solve the dispute. I'm inclined to prohibit tags like that which put meta-messages out at other locations. Feels like a canvasing situation. If they're here, it's already been talked out on the article's talk page and hoperfully they've consulted a expert in the field before getting to DRN. Just my thoughts. Hasteur (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It's because we're not experts that we're good at resolving disputes. It means we have no personal opinions on the matter and can give advice based purely on policy. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 19:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that TransporterMan has removed the tag in question, but I just wanted to say that I agree with this as well, mostly because the disputes that are tagged won't be listed at this noticeboard for very long. If a dispute is really a matter that can only be resolved with expert attention, then it might be best just to close the discussion and refer it to the relevant WikiProject talk page. Unless it is a very busy WikiProject, the discussion will likely stay visible for longer, and I also expect that more experts will be watching their WikiProject talk than the expert requests category. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Miszabot II down?

I just noticed Whenaxis's change to the Miszabot settings, which I tried to "fix", without realizing that he had made his earlier edit. However, looking at User talk:Misza13, it seems that it is more likely to be a problem with the bot itself than the page settings. Let's keep an eye on the Miszabot situation, and archive threads manually if we need to. (The next thread should be archived at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 21.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll start archiving because DRN looks like a mess without MiszaBot II. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 22:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh check this thread: [1]. MiszaBot II may not be up for awhile. So I'll volunteer to do manual archiving. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 22:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Huzzah! MiszaBot is working again! Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 23:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Texan verses Texian

The one and only new contribution to the discussion (other than a snarky comment on my user talk page) on the RfC came from a user who had seen the discussion appear here for its extraordinary brief (11 hour?) life, before being closed in lieu of an RfC.

I had already pointed out that the discussion had taken place on several related article talk pages, but no consensus was reached.

This tells me that my judgment to place it here was based on the always-likely result that my judgments of what is needed is good and therefore usually correct. Go figure.

We had discussed it. I, personally, had articulated the issues in more than one way, documented the relevant data (with others), asked for consensus (with others) and when none came, came here, but got sent packing. That leaves me where I began-- an edit war to ensue. And see? I thought this was the mechanism to avoid such things.

So, why not state clearly, "cregil, you have done everything, so begin the edit war, searching for "Texian" and replacing it with "Texan" in all instances throughout Wikipedia-- and we will assume that you are doing so in good faith with the consensus of all involved." Why not say that? The default has been that those who have not supplied objective or sourced data but have hunted the word "Texan" to near extinction are allowed to do so without consensus. So, either re-open, or give me permission to strong arm. Is it not only fair that those of us who have reason and data on our side might have a turn at such tactics?

Of course, that is hyperbole. I am merely trying to get someone's attention. I asked for help-- now, please, give it to me.

--cregil (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I've dropped a link to this discussion on the talk page of the DRN mediator/clerk who closed your request. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 17:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi cregil! (Thanks TM for dropping the note) --- From my reading of the discussion on the DRN page, and the comments thereafter, it seems that the same group of editors are going back and forth on this issue. I feel a great way to "break" this dispute would be to bring in editors from the broader community to comment and discuss the relevant issues. This way, you get outside opinions which could spur momentum towards consensus or compromise. From my experience, a group of editors who just go back and forth leads to bad feelings on all sides, and sometimes even bad conduct. I think an RfC is the option you should seriously consider.

Iff an RfC does not bring the needed consensus, then please count me willing to take this case to the Mediation Cabal for a pushed process of achieving a workable consensus. If you have any questions about my advice or about proceeding with a case at MedCab, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page or email me. Best of luck, Lord Roem (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Reopening request

I've been asked to reopen Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#List_of_Slovene_writers_and_poets_in_Hungary, which I closed for lack of discussion, on the basis of a discussion there which occurred several months ago, after which the editors walked away and did not resume reverting one another until yesterday. I am not inclined to do so, having some question in my mind whether or not there is enough of a dispute at this point to justify a listing here, but thought I'd raise the issue here in case someone else feels otherwise. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 21:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I would just monitor the dispute if you can and report it to WP:EWN when or if they breach the three-revert rule. Tell the parties to discuss on the talk page first, since it is a prerequisite. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 21:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I have again raised the issue on the talk page for the relevant article; I expect the response will be similar. Dialectric (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Unless the editor looks at the talk page often, the editor will not know it is there. So leave a short and kind message on the other editor's talk page to discuss about the removal of content on the article talk page rather than just reverting. Regards, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 22:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The other involved user has again restored the redlinks, and has not replied to my comment on their user page or on the talk page. Dialectric (talk) 12:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Quick closes

Hello everyone, I've noticed that recently a lot of DRN threads get closed very quickly if they don't conform strictly to the requirements of the noticeboard (no talk page discussion, wrong venue, etc.). I agree that we shouldn't be accepting these kinds of threads at the noticeboard, but I'm concerned that we are being overly bureaucratic by closing such threads so soon. If we think about this from the perspective of editor retention and not biting new users, closing threads abruptly can only be a bad thing. Even if we give good advice in the closing comments, people who bring complaints here are very likely to find it rude if clerks collapse their threads without any real interaction. Also, this noticeboard was originally made to reduce the bureaucracy at places like WP:ANI, and sending people off to different noticeboards for small things that could be dealt with here seems to be increasing the hoops that new users have to jump through if they have a complaint.

Rather than closing such threads straight away, I think we should introduce a rule of thumb of always interacting with the person who posts the dispute in some way before we close the thread. For example, we could make a post in the discussion section that says "Thank you for posting your complaint here. We're sorry to hear of your frustrations, but we cannot accept it at this noticeboard because it is not a content dispute. Instead please follow these steps: [insert useful advice here]." Or we could just post on their user talk page, or fix the article in question while leaving a note, and so on. But I think we need to be very careful with our words and our actions so as not to drive people away, as many people who post here will already be feeling angry/upset/bewildered. There's no need for this noticeboard to add to their worries. Sorry for the slight polemics here, but I'd be very interested to know what you all think. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose "Also, this noticeboard was originally made to reduce the bureaucracy ...": This may be one of the reasons for creating this noticeboard, but I had a discussion with the founder of this board and I don't think this was the intention of the board, or the single purpose of this board. I like the process of this board and the requirements on the filer's part to do part of the work, and not let other people deal with their disputes. Clearly there are editors who make no effort to improve the project and use fora to advertise their disputes. I believe our quick closes are perfectly in order and if there was a close that was out of line, this can be reverted.Curb Chain (talk) 05:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Eh I saw a cartoon many years ago by Ben Sargent of the Austin American-Statesman which showed something like the following: There are two guys in lab coats in a veterinarian's office. One is reading a newspaper with the headline, "Texas Adopts Lethal Injection." There's a price list on the wall that reads:

• Send Snookums to Heaven: $25
• Put your pet to sleep: $20
• Kill your dog: $15

The caption reads, "Well, I see we've gone up to the $20 job."

I see, Strad, that you want to go from the $20 job to the $25 one. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 13:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Mixed Bag On the one hand I don't want the inter mural spitball fights that happen at the larger boards (ANI, AN, WQA) to take up residence but at the other hand we claim ourselves to be an entry to the DR process so we need to try and be open. The speedy closes I've recently seen fall into 2 categories. "Solicit people to help me win my dispute" and "I don't like it, so I'm going to raise a stink to win the dispute". I think a 12/24 hour grace period should be added to allow those unfamiliar with the process to learn what they need and fill out the listing form correctly, but beyond that we should still close down disputes that have failed the minimum standards (Not a Content dispute, No talk page discussion) unless there is positive discussion occuring about the problem. Shades of Grey is the way I see it. Hasteur (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Recuse: Per this recent conversation on my talk page involving this matter. However, I'd like to comment that when we do close threads, I think it's better to provide some input first and not collapse the threads. Just merely removed the <!-- [[User:Do Not Archive Until]] 00:00, 01 March 3000 --> and let it archive in due course fully uncollapsed so readers can see why it's being closed. Maybe we can edit the template using this {{Closed}} instead of this {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}}. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 21:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually... I think the best way to do this, is what TransporterMan has got starting. For threads that are going to be closed, stick a notice like this: If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: ~~~~~ for {{{1}}}. {{{1}}} will be replaced with a rationale for closure. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thought: I'm all for quick closing out of scope requests, but I think giving a 24 hour window for the disputant to make their case would be well appreciated. See the Topic "Talk:Serbia under German occupation, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DIREKTOR/Archive#25_March_2012" to understand my current thoughts. When a thread is outright closed after less than a hour for discussion it becomes counter-productive. Hasteur (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts, Hasteur. But I don't think it's appropriate for editors to be cross-spamming the same dispute across an array of forums. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't encourage forum shopping. If it's a clear case of forum shopping, and the poster is an experienced user who really should know better, then I think we can just close the case with no more interaction. If it's a relatively new user, and they are posting at the board because they are stressed and upset that the other forums have given the Wrong Answer, then I think that the situation is more complicated. On the one hand, we don't want to subvert Wikipedia policies and guidelines just to make this user happy; but on the other hand, we don't want to just shut the door in their face, as that would have a very good chance of ensuring that they stop contributing to Wikipedia altogether.

I think the thing that was bothering me about the quick closes the most is that the users don't have a place where they can continue the conversation. Many users will have questions that they would like to ask, or they may wish to correct us if they feel we have misunderstood a situation, but once we close their DRN threads there is no obvious place to do those things, especially if the users are still learning the ins and outs of Wikipedia. Worse, they might be intimidated into not asking their questions at all, even if they know where to do so.

I think a good way of dealing with situations like this is to close the thread but to leave a note on their user talk page; that way the noticeboard is kept free of forum shopping, and the users will not feel like they have been let down by the system so much. I also like TransporterMan's/Whenaxis's idea of giving 24 hours' notice before closing threads, as this also leaves room for questions and comments. Maybe there's a way we can alter the closing templates to make things less intimidating to new users, but I think the issue here is more cultural than technological. If we can sort out the cultural things, the technical aspects of closing won't really matter. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I will start working on the template or integrating it into the current closing templates. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Just so I'm not misunderstood about this: I'm opposed to a general restriction of quick closes. Sometimes it's appropriate, sometimes it's not. When there's been no discussion, there's no reason to retain it here in most cases and a quick kick back sends the message that they need to discuss it before going to DR. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 21:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I just want to make it clear that regardless of the reason for closure {{DRN status}} (a template I just made) should always be used first just as a courtesy notice before collapsing the thread and will provide as a 24-hour grace period for any remaining issues to be ironed out. After 24 hours the thread will be closed, but just for safekeeping - I've modified the {{DRN archive top}} template so it includes a visible notice for any remaining questions. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

We've never really discussed the "discussion required" rule. In my opinion it is necessary because otherwise DR subverts the principle that conflicts must be discussed and edit warring must be avoided (and also the ideal that we must make decisions by compromise and discussion, not by either edit warring or by immediately appealing to "authority" as soon as any dispute arises). That subversion will still occur if we give a 24-hour notice and then fail to close the listing merely because discussion begins here at DRN after the 24 hour notice is given. The situation becomes even worse if a mediator/clerk steps in to assist with the dispute during the 24 hours.For that reason, if we're going to give 24 hour notices on "no discussion" cases, then we should close the listing once 24 hours has passed even if discussion has started here and especially if a mediator/clerk has intervened within the 24 hours. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 00:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking the purposes of 'no discussion' as abandoned, no talk page discussion, etc. Because we should always give advice and await for responses from the parties, then if there is no response that would be considered 'no discussion'. Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 01:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I think closing 'no discussion' cases straight away is fine, unless it is obvious from the context that kicking it back to the talk page would be counter-productive. If it's just a case of "someone made an edit that I didn't like, resolve it!" then no harm will come of summarily closing the thread here. However, if there has been significant edit warring, bad words traded in edit summaries, etc., then more interaction would probably prove beneficial. (Even if that is just to explain the relevant policies before sending it back to the talk page.) I agree with TransporterMan that one size does not fit all here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Whenaxis, In order to file a report on this noticeboard, a discussion needs to be started between the disputed parties somewhere because if we are not some sort of court that is supposed to determine who is right or to prescribe a course of action. I don't think it is always necessary to "give advice" because I don't think we need to feed the trolls if one is trolling, and I think we can reasonably assume that filers have and understanding of the grounds rules of wiki projects.Curb Chain (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, you should always assume good faith. Often, content disputes are hidden behind conduct issues because people are just so passionate about what they believe in and it results in edit warring and name calling. Just merely closing the thread will anger them further. Just giving some advice can be a lifeline to the resolution of the dispute. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 13:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Though I've reverted the page header to its prior version, I think Whenaxis needs to be publicly thanked for working on this and on the change to {{DRN archive top}} (which I've tweaked very slightly). I like the idea of a 24 hour close notice, I just don't think it ought to be universally required. Let's work further on this. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 13:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we can just use common sense and your own discretion. When in doubt, ask another DRN volunteer for a second opinion... and perhaps "co-close" the thread to strengthen the reasoning for closure. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 18:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Like many things relating to dispute resolution (and as original creator of the board - though this shouldn't add any extra weight my comments, assess them independently), I have a few thoughts here as to how we should proceed. I have other ideas about reworking the dispute resolution noticeboard in general (see below section) but I think the key here is to find a balance between making it easy for ordinary users to get assistance with their dispute, making it simple enough for us regulars to filter and resolve the disputes, and making it less daunting for newer users to get involved - after all, there aren't enough of us to handle the disputes. So, my suggestion is finding a balance between all three. I'll make more comments in the below section because I have a fair bit to say (as always) so it might be best to continue in that section. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 09:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

If an editor is new, it usually does not start with a dispute. We have Wikipedia:Help desk and Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests for this.Curb Chain (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

"The Closer"

Perhaps it's me, but it seems like I'm becoming the smack the disputants upside the head, refer them somewhere (Currated RfC, Med*, Arbcom) and warning them what may happen. Any thoughts on this? Hasteur (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've been dragged into the ANI side of this [2] a couple of times, tried on their talk page as well. I already told them (on R's page) that they need to either work it out and stop coming to ANI with petty squabbles or I would seek a topic ban for both of them. Then they started arguing with each other and disputing my comments, so I gave up. Next ANI, I will seek a topic ban. So to answer your question, I think you are being too soft on them. ;) Dennis Brown (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the dispute and/or editors have been too ANI at least once. So deferring back to ANI will likely not resolve the dispute. I would suggest a request for comments on user conduct. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 00:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Twice. [3] and the other one I closed but is still on the current page. Each has brought the other to ANI for personal attacks, tit for tat. In reality, it has mainly been a slap fight, both times with no action required as the offenses just weren't that great. It is all over deleting/reverting a trivia point about a motorcycle. The problem is that neither will listen to the other, or anyone else, and are quite verbose while doing it. This is why I said I could possibly see a topic ban for both as the only solution, in all sincerity. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I would move towards an interaction ban between the two editors, if the ANI discussion is still open. If not done already, the page under dispute should be fully protected for a temporary amount of time until the dispute is resolved, if necessary, the protection can be renewed. It should be protected because of battleground mentality that they are following. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 00:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• But how do you enforce an interaction ban without settling the content dispute, and how do you settle the content dispute if the editors won't actually discuss? It's a chicken and egg problem. IMHO, they both are disrupting many areas on Wikipedia by their conduct, and a topic ban is the least harsh method of dealing with it. And maybe an interaction ban afterwards. Both actually seem like nice enough guys individually, they do, they just are oil and water and I don't see any possible solution that isn't imposed from outside. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Why do you propose a topic ban? That would mean they would have to avoid all topics where they are providing some sort of logical content to the article. An interaction ban is the lesser of the evils in my opinion because it's the lightest of restrictions, editor X is not permitted to:

• edit editor Y's user and user talk space;
• reply to editor Y in discussions;
• make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly; or
• undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means).

and vice versa. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 01:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. Me here. Maybe answer to your chicken and egg problem is that you adjudicate. We came to this board for disupte resolution and all we got was "a plague on both your houses!" Of course there's something wrong with the way both disputants are discussing it. If we were discussing it the right way, it would never have come to this. But you guys just sat back and washed your hands of it because it looked like to much work to untangle.

  If somebody from this board had picked just one point of disagreement, then issued a definitive decision on it, that point could have been put to rest. Then we could have moved on to the next point of disagreement. That would have been progress. Instead you let us re-fight the same questions over and over. We could have kept on doing that on the article talk page. Why come here at all if nothing is going to get decided? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• WP:DRN isn't about adjudication per se, it is about getting people to find a compromise or come to an understanding that is within guidelines. This is the lowest level of "official" dispute resolution. In some disputes, the policy issue is crystal clear, so an answer is just as clear. This case isn't, so it needs to be bumped up to a higher level. TransporterMan recommended going to RfC on the first day of the DR, over 3 weeks ago. Hasteur recommended the same today, I have as well. Read the top of this page, where it says "It is both a place where small content disputes can be resolved, and a gateway to other processes in the dispute resolution hierarchy.". Your case isn't going to get settled here, it has been over 3 weeks, that should be clear. I personally think you are both good contributors but are bringing out the worst in each other, and this protracted discussion is making it worse. Just take it Wikipedia:Requests for comment so a larger audience can hear it. Otherwise, it is just going to get uglier. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm looking forward to mediation, because with somebody in charge, resolution is possible. I just don't like this turn of events: you all thinking it's time for you to hand out sanctions to the two of us. No, we're not perfect, not by a long shot, but if we were, we'd have no need of Dispute Resolution. If this DRN dispute had not been re-opened, it never would have come to this. Or at any time during the three weeks somebody here could have realized it wasn't going to get solved, it could have been closed then. So maybe a tighter reign needs to be held on your end rather than expect those deep in the midst of an argument to realize it's going nowhere. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep in mind that TransporterMan said to take it to RfC on day one. I would say that was incredible insight on his part, and had it been moved there at that time, it would have already been resolved. I understand the frustration in the process, but the process only works when the suggestions of the participants are considered. And yes, if it doesn't go to RfC or a higher venue, then I would be for very limited sanctions rather than let the dispute continue on and on and on.... Not as punishment, but because Wikipedia as a whole is more important than any one dispute. I made that clear hoping one of you would simply go to RfC, which is the proper thing to do. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

De-railed and all, I wasn't speaking about any specific closure process but the way I seem to be the strong glove of authority on threads that have lived much longer than they probably need to be on this rung of the DR ladder. Thoughts on that and not any specific discussion *cough*? Hasteur (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Your closes are all in order. I would have done the same thing, only difference is you beat me to it.Curb Chain (talk) 07:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Strong but fair is what is required, what I have seen looked proper. (sorry about that...maybe some good came out of the tangent) Dennis Brown (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

We've been talking about things we can do to improve DR and DRN in specific (see the last section, above). One thing that needs to be discussed is what I'll call the "claiming" phenomenon (it could also be called the "let George do it" phenomenon, but I think "claiming" is more apropos). It is our tendency to regard the first regular participant here to edit a case as having claimed or taken responsibility for that case. (Most of what I'm saying here may, admittedly, be a projection of my own warped psyche.) Part of it comes from the fact that there's just not enough of us and we all have particular types of dispute that we don't care to handle. Part of it comes, I feel, from respect for one another. Some of it comes from particular individual sensitivities and quirks. Part of it may come from a, "he's got it; it's his problem now" attitude. I think that I may be seconding Hasteur here when I say — and this particular pot, i.e. me, is definitely calling the kettle black — that we need to both feel more free and be more willing to jump into "one another's" cases. I reopened the motorcycle case, somewhat against my better judgment, because I wasn't 100% sure what to do with the new claim made in the reopening request on my talk page that WP:WPACT controlled the case. I was concerned that because I had closed the case in the first place that if I expressed my actual feelings about it — that it shouldn't have any effect — that my neutrality might be called into question as just an attempt to enforce my prior opinion about the matter. This was especially true because my reasons for believing that it shouldn't have any effect were both nuanced and, to some degree, merely an opinion. I also didn't feel it appropriate to post a note here on this talk page (or, worse, on someone's talk page or in email) canvassing for some other DRN regular to jump in, make that decision, and close the case. Though I tried to make it clear in my reopening statement that the effect of WP:WPACT was the key to resolving this dispute, no one jumped in. I'm not pointing fingers or casting blame here, but just pointing out what happened. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I guess it's been an unwritten rule that once a "clerk" takes responsibility for a thread, pending a serious problem, that clerk is the main person handling the dispute. I just have the concern that I'm being perceived as the heavy handed closer that is jumping into other clerk's threads and forcing a resolution (i.e. the Wars dispute, the motorcycle dispute, etc.) I don't think it's a major concern, but seeing the other regulars agreeing with me, I'll continue to provide the function if it's needed. Hasteur (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

@Hasteur: See my comment to Whenaxis at 18:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC), in the Improving DR - Start with DRN section just above. We've just all silently appointed you to be our Luca Brasi. Have a problem with a recalcitrant or disputatious editor in a DRN thread? Just give it a moment and let Hasteur act, boom, it sleeps with the fishes. :-) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC) PS: If Hasteur is going to be Luca Brasi, can I be consigliere Tom Hagen? TM — 15:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

ROFL on the second part. Hasteur (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

We don't have any "he does this, she does that" here on DRN. I've closed files, I've commented on others (being not the first person to comment). If the file needs to close because the filer can't interpret consensus, that is within the policy/guidelines to do so.Curb Chain (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Improving DR - Start with DRN

Hi all. So, as some of you may know, I've been running a survey on our dispute resolution processes, in an effort to better understand our dispute resolution processes. It's given me a lot of insight, and some food for thought. We have a lot of work to do, and it makes sense to start with DRN, which is essentially one of the main entry points for dispute resolution on Wikipedia, but it needs improvement. Early survey results show that satisfaction with DRN isn't that great. While I don't want to throw around numbers yet, less than 20% gave DRN a 4 or 5 out of 5. Nearly half gave it a 1 or 2, so we have improvements to make. I think DRN is becoming a bit overgrown with big disputes, and perhaps we should consider re-addressing its purpose. Some of the threads have gotten very long, so we should discuss how to move forward here. Survey respondents think that DR is too complex, and acknowledge that there's not enough of us to resolve the disputes in a timely manner. Perhaps we put a target on resolution of threads, say, 5-7 days. After that, either close as stale or kick up to somewhere like MedCab/RFC, or even a new forum altogether, that could offer a different style of DR - I'm not sure, thinking out loud here. I think we need to consider that some disputes take longer than necessary to resolve. Mediation is not really designed for all disputes, it's a slower moving beast to other processes. We could always move longer DRN threads to a subpage, thats an option.

Another thing I'm thinking of is maybe expanding our scope. Even now, there are still mixed feelings about DRN and its format. The survey has showed me that WQA isn't that good at resolving conduct disputes, so it had me thinking about adding an option to address content disputes at DRN as well, perhaps with another template like the one we use for content issues at present. Let's get talking. We have a lot of work to do, and many hands make for a lighter load. Let's see what we can come up with. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 10:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Remember, my conciliation idea of expedited dispute resolution processes? I think parties rather have it resolved faster and somewhere rather than being redirected all over the place like at DRN. However, I do support closures of what appears to be bad-faith mass spamming threads. We should reduce the number of forums so we condense the number of volunteers at one forum. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 13:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• First, I think that we need to be careful not to misinterpret the unfiltered survey results. The people who are most likely to bother answering a survey are those who were dissatisfied, and of that group the ones most likely to be dissatisfied were the losers. They're naturally going to pick the processes apart to self-justify their loss. I'd be curious to see what the results look like with the responses of those who lost or who did not indicate the outcome of their DR experience filtered out. Or something else to eliminate the sour grapes responses. As a lawyer and a person experienced in real-world DR, it's simply true that virtually no one is truly satisfied with dispute resolution. No one wants to be involved in it as a party or is willing to become involved in it unless they are forced to do so or think that they can gain some advantage over others by doing so. At the end of the day everyone comes to realize, at least innately, that there are no real winners, that everyone loses something, and that every victory is at least to some degree a Pyrrhic victory. The best we can hope for is to reduce the dissatisfaction in the processes as much as we can while providing fair outcomes which improve the encyclopedia.
• Second, when evaluating the notion that DRN is too complex we've got to bear in mind that part of the perceived problem with its predecessor was that it was too informal.
• Third, when evaluating the notion that DR is too complex we've got to bear in mind that a great number of people who do anything at Wikipedia are here for instant gratification. Anything which requires a process is not going to make them happy (even though they may be willing to engage in a weeks-long EW or flamewar, but that's just part of instant gratification because those things require no effort beyond mere reaction). Anything which requires a process and requires them to justify their actions beyond "I don't like it" is going to make them even less happy. That's the reason that I suspect that Third Opinion may have done better than some of the other fora mentioned above: there's almost no process and virtually nothing is required of the participants.
• Fourth, stale closes at DRN: I don't have a problem with that idea, per se, but want to use it a platform from which to say that I think that one of the greatest dissatisfactions that people have with DR is that they come to DR and nothing gets resolved: that the matter just dries up, gets thrown back to its own devices, or gets handed off to another process which is just as ineffectual as the one that handed it off. Part of that frustration is just part of Wikipedia and the wiki process, but it is part of what gives DR a bad reputation: without binding content processes and with volunteers who are both limited in number and (let's admit it) only willing to do what and as much as they care to do, there's just so much that DR can do.

I suppose that in summary I think that we need to be careful not to jump to the conclusion that the system, or individual elements in the system, are broken and need to be fixed. We must be as certain as we can that what we're doing is an improvement, not just an experiment, when the present system does at least some good. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately, there will always be a loser and a winner in a dispute, no matter how hard we try not to provide a decision. I think because consensus is actually binding, if we tell editors who are participating in content dispute resolution that it is binding, editors will likely be more interested in participating with a satisfication of it being legitimately resolved instead of lingering around even when content forums have been used continously. Likewise, the legal system which also uses DR, people are never interested into entering a dispute because it's often lengthy and costly. On Wikipedia, you can remove the costly aspect, but the lengthy aspect still remains. If we can resolve the problem of lengthiness and satisfication, I'm sure that we will find a way to resolve disputes more effectively. Yet, on the other hand, some editors get irate when a closure is made prematurely. In response to Steven's idea of using subpages, I don't think that's a good idea - editors get made also when disputes are moved all over the place without their knowing. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 18:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

"Editors get made"? If only we could get a few made, maybe we could make a few offers that can't be refused. Now that's dispute resolution... Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Haha. Whoops. My stupid laptop has such small keys! Or it may just be inability to properly review what I write. :) Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 18:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

@TransporterMan, indeed, we do need to look into the survey results in more depth than just the numbers, but it still gives us an indicator that things need to be improved. I still believe that if there were more of us to tackle these disputes, the better it would be. So we need to think of ways to make it less daunting for a newer DR volunteer to get involved. That should be our focus for the time being, as we are a bit short staffed.

@Whenaxis, of course we wouldn't just dump a dispute onto a subpage. You would move the dispute to a subpage and then replace the section in DRN with something like "moved to XYZ subpage". It's done quite often elsewhere when the thread gets too long. It'd have the added benefit here of making the board look less daunting, too. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, they do on ANI, and the subpages go unresolved (I know first-handedly). The reason editors come to DRN is to get more exposure to the dispute and more editors commenting, if moved to a subpage, it's counterproductive. Remember when I set this up for a short while, that will making DRN more effective and more organized, in my opinion. As said before, DR is too processy and it needs to be more streamlined. Make it more straightforward so editors don't feel overwhelmed in "their time of need". Make it simpler. Make less forums and condense volunteers into a single location. I'm formulating something within my own userspace that will make it a more in-depth anaylsis of disputes. I'll give you more info through e-mail. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

@User:Steven Zhang: Steven, as mentioned before by User:TransporterMan, this preliminary analysis before the raw data has even out is premature. It is pointless to surmise what is wrong with dispute resolution until all the data is out.Curb Chain (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello there! I've not taken part at DRN for a little while, so I'm not speaking from recent first hand experience. As TransporterMan said, people will get bored very quickly and do not want to have to keep watching a DRN thread when they could be doing something they enjoy much more (ie. editing). Nevertheless, we cannot sacrifice the quality of dispute resolution just to stop people getting bored, else we'd be ineffective. Presently I don't have any answers, but this discussion should provoke some ideas in some of us. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit short on ideas at present myself, though I did have think of one in the car on the way to work. So, we could make DRN the entry point for DR. We could expand it to deal with both content and conduct issues. Set a limit of say, five to seven days for resolution. If, after that time things aren't resolved, it could proceed to some sort of concilliation/mediation variant. I'm not sure yet, but that's an idea I have. Have each party draw up what they want to get out of the dispute resolution (at mediation/concilliation) then work through the issues, from easiest to hardest. Might be something we should look into. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Steve, I was thinking about creating a central noticeboard that could replace any overlapping forums. The noticeboard would look like this: Wikipedia:Dashboard. Some ideas I thought of are in my userspace here: WP:DRIDEAS. Feel free to look it over and give feedback. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget we already have WP:DRR. But some consolidation seems to be a logical step. We need more of us to tackle the disputes though. I think we should start developing a how-to guide to dispute resolution. Build our numbers first. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 00:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Do we not have a "how-to guide" under development already? Oh, and I was thinking about implementing an outreach program, similar to other WikiProjects. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 00:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Conciliation is on idle. We can grasp some thoughts from my idea of conciliation, maybe? Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 00:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Why was it restored?Curb Chain (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I requested deletion for the page under G7 because I did not think that it was of much importance since the community thought it was a replica of mediation and the mediation process. But now it seems to be of more importance with discussion of conciliation and streamlining the process above. Best regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 18:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What kind of outreach program are you thinking of? WP:WikiProject Dispute Resolution has a list of participants. If people are interested in working to resolve disputes, they already have these resources.Curb Chain (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Could we consider merging WP:DRN and WP:3O in such a way that 3rd-opinion givers would not throw their hands up in dismay? I have felt for a while that these processes were both trying to do essentially the same thing, but in slightly different ways and at different locations. If we could integrate both of them into one streamlined system, we would be able to gather all of the DR volunteers together in one place, and make it easier for people in a dispute to choose what to do. ("Are you in a dispute? Post it HERE.") — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Strad, that was my idea up there with the dashboard-type system and my DR streamlining proposal in my userspace. Please take a look at them and see what you think, if you haven't done so already. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 12:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

@User:Mr. StradivariusMr. Stradivarius: I disagree with this idea because WP:DRN was meant to be a black-and-white, point-by-point dispute venue for filers so that the clerks can easily distinguish the grievances of a dispute. WP:30 is a completely different forum altogether. Both of these fora serve different purposes.Curb Chain (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

In otherwords, OpposeCurb Chain (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Curb Chain, there's no "voting" on any proposal just yet about whether you support or oppose an idea. It's just an open discussion about dispute resolution and an opportunity for us to throw around some ideas. As from the early results obtained from the DR survey, there's unhappiness with the system and there's a need to streamline the system and make it less processy. Do you have any ideas on how to possibly incorporate third opinion and DRN so neither losses its effect? Best regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 21:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:30 works perfectly well on its own. WP:DRN works perfectly now. I don't see a need for change in either of these "boards" or consolidation of both of these fora.Curb Chain (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a fairly reasonable point. But I saw some of the early results from the DR survey, and the survey participants rated DRN surprisingly low. I understand your point and everything looks fine the way it is, but you don't think there's any room for improvement, at all? Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Early results from the DR survey, and who exactly were queried? User:TransporterMan is completely correct in stating care should be taken when interpreting results, but I go further that the results should not extrapolated until all of the data is "published", or on our hand.

Are the survey participants DRN clerks here? Or are the survey participants the people who were party to the disputes? This would skew results. With all due respect, your style is to make DRN as conducive to the disputing parties and filers. I on the other hand know that this is assuming too much good faith. As volunteers, we cannot hold disputing parties' hands and this is the wrong venue to do so.Curb Chain (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Steve only sent me some rough numbers as to what each DR process was rated. I agree that we shouldn't go too far without having the full survey results. Yes, I'm pretty sure that a survey invitation was sent to every DRN clerk and we can't just make it favourable for us. We have to accomodate disputants as well. We want disputants to come to us and be satisfied with the process. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

And what was the methodology of the survey? Did it give a rating to questions? What were the questions? Questions like "Are you satisfied with our current DR structure"? This can indicate a degree of satisfaction, but this in no way indicates a need to change our any DR process.Curb Chain (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you participate in the survey? Okay - let's just settle this for now and we can talk about it further when the full survey results are out. Agreed? Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 00:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I precisely did not participate in the survey so that already skews the results of the survey. AgreedCurb Chain (talk) 00:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)