Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dispute Resolution/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Onwards and upwards

Wikipedia is a community project. The community is quite good at many encyclopædia-building tasks, but it's not good at process change. I've lost count of the number of well-intentioned proposals for improved back-office processes which stumble and fail - but a minority have made it through the gauntlet. So, if we are to achieve anything on this page, I think we need to focus on one or two concrete and achievable proposals rather than dissipating our efforts on a variety of different things.
So, which of the proposals above has the best chance of building up momentum and making a positive improvement to en.wikipedia? bobrayner (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Binding RFCs is currently in its own RfC, so presumably someone thought it a good candidate. Peter jackson (talk) 10:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for your comments and opinion on Wikipedia talk:Representation

Please place your comments on the talk page, not here. Whenaxis (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

still alive?

I was notified of this project during some much needed downtime. I just joined up, but it looks like there hasn't been much activity in almost 2 months.

That's a testament to the size of the problem. Our problems with the DR process is actually a combination of MANY different problems, all of which require many different solutions.

  • One-on-one content disputes on a single page with no neutral third-party to help.
  • Repeated, large RFCs that always end in a majority, but not a consensus.
  • Repeated failed RFCs initiated by a minority.
  • New users who don't know how to use or access our dispute processes.
  • Veteran users who engage in below-the-radar incivility and WP:GAMEing.
  • Disputes between two collaborations/WikiProjects, or between a collaboration and the larger community.
  • Etc.

The only way this collaboration is going to work is if we try to narrow down the problem. Pick out one flaw in the dispute resolution process first... then discuss solutions. Don't try to tackle the whole problem, or even the biggest problem. Just any problem that's reasonably important, and reasonably solvable. Low hanging fruit.

Just my two cents. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

There has actually been some activity elsewhere. A proposal was made at VP but failed to gain consensus. Maybe people will now resume activity here, or at least suggest where else to go.
I'm not sure what you mean by "failed RFCs":
  1. those where the applicants are defeated
  2. those where (virtually) nobody replies at all
Different types of problems again. Peter jackson (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I haven't been in any significant disputes lately that couldn't handle through existing facilities including WP:DRN and WP:Wikiquette assistanc, so haven't felt need to come here. Maybe we've already succeeded? Or maybe I'm just waiting til the next big blowout, like when I start updating a certain BLP heavily edited by people trying to destroy the subject. :-( CarolMooreDC 16:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I'd like for us to all put our heads together and find a way to address the issues brought up at the village pump, fix them, then re-propose the binding content discussions idea. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 19:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe a quick summary for those of us who drifted away? :-( CarolMooreDC 19:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I admit I missed that discussion due to time off. A little summary would be helpful. It would also be interesting to hear what type of conflict a binding RFC would be well-suited for, and what problem it's aiming to solve. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Primarialy naming disputes. I think a two-pronged approach may work here, a structured content discussion for narrow disputes that do not involve article titles, when the dispute has failed mediation as one approach, and another approach with the same format involving article titles, with the results being binding for a period of time. As for summarising the VP thread, it was huge. It might be hard to summarise, sorry. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 22:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Are naming disputes a particularly common issue? Do they have an especially negative effect on the community?Shooterwalker (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Isn't Arbcom handling a case on Article Titles right now? Similar problems would be the en/em dash dispute, and then the eternal problems with disputed territories. I think that in some cases these could have been handled by a binding RfC like Steven Zhang proposed, but, for reasons I haven't figured out yet, the very idea of binding rfcs was shot down. I'll have to first go back through that discussion (SZ, can you put a permalink up somewhere) to figure out if the community's concerns can actually be answered to know if its worth reviving under a different form. But, ultimately, I think that the key thing we need is some way to actually "solve" content disputes, at least in the sense of being able to "finish" them for some specified period. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course I can. Here is the discussion at the VP on Binding RFCs]. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 23:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I read it over. I don't want to get trapped into trying into making this project push a single proposal over and over. But it is a good idea and seems to build on something that's already been set up in the past by ArbCom. I think one of the things that could give it a different focus is a "collaborative guideline" or "collective contract". The idea that you're not setting up something to be binding for all eternity, but bringing together people to write a guideline that will help contain some of the more radical views that are pushed in a dispute. I don't think it was your intention to have something that would be binding forever, but just using a guideline as a starting point gives people a frame of reference we can all live with. That would at least begin to address the WP:CCC objections... although there were other concerns. Myself personally, I'd be concerned if the binding RFC still fails to produce a clear consensus, and all you've done is added more bureaucracy and poured gasoline on the fire. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I did think that I detailed in the proposal that the result of binding RFCs would be only for a period of time, not forever. I think we should work on the proposal together, one suggestion was given to make it for naming disputes only, with a structured unbinding variant for disputes that are stuck after mediation with the next step being ArbCom. I suppose the purpose of this process would be to try and resolve a dispute short of arbcom, which generally ends with results similar to "Users X and Y are banned from wikipedia for Z", so perhaps that would make people more willing to compromise. I think we should work on a few ideas. One other idea I had was a robot, working similar to ClueBot, would monitor pages and pick up potential disputes, and draw attention to them somehow. I'm not really sure how this would work, but I had a chat to a member of the Bot Approvals Group recently and they thought it was an interesting idea and when we had some solid ideas they'd see what they could do to help. Lastly, I really think we should work on fleshing out the Reference desk style dispute resolution requests pages. It would essentially list the most active and least active (stale) disputes on the various pages, so issues don't get out of control or forgotten. The only way to do this (as far as I know) from a technical level would be to transclude each page onto the DR requests subpage and have a robot move <onlyinclude> tags around the page every few hours. But yeah, I'm only one guy. Lots of ideas, need assistance though :-) Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 02:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Things always do better on Wikipedia with a collaborative spirit. You'd probably have clarified a few things right off the bat with just a bit more input. I'm in to help with this (or anything). But let's try to get at least a handful of editors working on it. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Possible response to your questions further up about naming disputes. Something that distinguishes them from ordinary ones is this. In ordinary disputes you can, and usually should, put diferent POVs in the article. But when it comes to naming, WP policy requires you to plump for one or the other (or another in some cases). That's not the only way to do things. Wikinfo for example encourages articles giving alternative POVs, and that obviously includes alternative names. The same applies to a lesser extent to Knowino. But not here. Peter jackson (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Forking as a method for dispute resolution

A couple of years ago, I wrote an essay (User:Ravpapa/The Politicization of Wikipedia) in which I suggested using content forking as a means of dispute resolution. The idea was that if two warring groups could not agree on the wording of an article, that two subpages be created within the article space, where the two sides could develop their ideas, then negotiate (if possible) an agreed version. The essay also suggested some editing and mediation rules that would make merger of the versions a possibility.

The idea was fairly roundly rejected by just about everyone. But User:Peter jackson has just brought to my attention that this very method is being used at the Knowino and Wikinfo Wikis. Is anyone aside from myself interested in knowing how well this method works in practice? Or should I just let the idea recumb into its usual moribund state? Regards --Ravpapa (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a technique that could work well in mediation, but only in some cases - if we artificially separate a dispute into "sides" when originally there were a range of opinions, then I think it might hinder dispute resolution rather than help it. Having said that, it is always good to see how techniques work in practice, so I agree that we should keep an eye on other wikis to see how their dispute resolution works. Do you have any links to disputes where it has been tried? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
(e/c) I have utilised a variant of this technique within mediation before, see User:Steven Zhang/Proposals. But it's use outside of mediation, IMHO, is a bad idea. It is in direct violation of WP:POVFORK, obviously, but the larger problem is potential NPOV issues. I think that it's a good technique to use within mediation to get parties to work towards a compromise, but it's use should be restricted to dispute resolution under the guidance of a mediator, and not within article space. Others may feel different but that's my take on it. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 06:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I should clarify. What I think Ravpapa is talking about is using temporary forking to work towards a unified article. That's the method laid down in Knowino, but that's a small new site and has quite possibly never had to use it. Wikinfo and WikiSynergy, on the other hand, make no attempt at having a unified article. Each side presents their own POV in their own articles, with whatever arguments, evidence and/or citations they want, and the results are hatlinked. Readers are left to study them and make up their own minds. Peter jackson (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
(Even if they make up their minds not to make up their minds.) Peter jackson (talk) 11:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
We have sand boxes for this.Curb Chain (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
This can be a useful mediation tool. But it can't be an end in of itself. The goal still has to be a unified article. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Intervening in disputes?

I happened to notice this description of a dispute regarding use of Wikiproject tags on article talk pages: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#WikiProject_Conservatism. I don't know if it's in the scope of this project to report such things here in case others want to jump in and try to resolve issues. But thought I'd announce and ask at same time, and find out! :-) CarolMooreDC 02:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this sort of thing would be better posted at WP:DRN, or more likely WP:WQA. We don't want to make the structure for resolving disputes any more complicated than it needs to be. As for the dispute, it doesn't seem to be much of one - I think WhatamIdoing's comment at the thread you linked to lays it out pretty well. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC) (Edit - this has escalated a bit since I first saw it. I've left a message at the thread recommending WP:WQA.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I would hope that people active here would at least have DRN on their watch list :-) Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 08:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
To clarify, I'm not a party to the dispute, or would have known to come here. It's just something I noticed in passing, and was wondering if proactive intervention in these situations was something this group wanted to do. CarolMooreDC 17:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Carol, at minimum, I would hope the parties know to bring such a deadlocked dispute to DRN or other appropriate venue! AGK [•] 09:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Duh, I guess one can always suggest they do that. That's really all the intervention project members need, besides there own comments where ever the dispute arises. In fact I'm on the verge of bringing something here from a noticeboard where one or more people seem to be on verge of creating policy to benefit one not very popular Admin :-( CarolMooreDC 19:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Coding the bot

I am a programmer and I think I would be interested in coding a bot. However, I have zero experience making bots for wikipedia and I don't quite understand what the bot is supposed to do. Has this bot been approved and just need built or do we need to first hammer out a spec and propose it? Eomund (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

We need to hammer out a spec and propose it. :) All we have at the moment is a general idea of what we want it to do - unless User:Steven Zhang has had any news that I haven't heard yet, that is. Not too sure about the best place to learn Wikipedia bot skills, though. Maybe other editors will be more knowledgeable. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Still waiting for Madman to get back to me. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 06:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Sorry, I've censored part of the comment below. I hope I did not change the meaning. Von Restorff (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh fucking great, a survey and you have to answer EVERY SINGLE FUCKING QUESTION. Kiss my ass. How you gonna get anything decent out of this. From stats? This is all you need to know. Dispute Resolutions are mainly a tool of butthurt editors. Look at all the editors who are on indefinite bans. They are almost all busy with dispute resolutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk • contribs) 04:47, 6 April 2012‎ (UTC)

Hi there Mr Anonymous. Sorry that you seem to have had bad experiences with dispute resolution. For what it's worth, your feedback on the survey would be very helpful, although there is of course no need to fill it out if you don't want to. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Please, don't be sorry or patronizing. Don't ignore the substance of my critique. And don't be presumptuous; I haven't been scarred by dispute resolution, I've just not seen it do jack shit. You're survey is offensive because it requires every questions to be answered. You won't fix it-or wackos-with metrics. Now PAY ATTENTION, how are you gonna stop Wiki lawyering when good faith is the assumption. That prevents sensible intuitions from being acted on. The problem is endemic and not subject to surgical removal. And finally, and excuse this one since it is a little personal, do you have any track record with surveys? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Somebody needs a nap... I started that survey, but it was too long with too many inapplicable questions or ones I didn't know the answers to. The DR process itself takes way too long and needs more outside participation, but other than that I don't see ways to improve it without breaking other parts of WP. Be——Critical 19:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm the one that has developed the survey, so concerns about it should go to my talk page, not really here. Not all the questions in the survey are mandatory, most are optional. The only mandatory questions are those marked with an asterisk. There are a lot of questions, yes, but from the results I've gathered so far it's provided a lot of insight into the thoughts of the community with regards to dispute resolution. Some metrics are helpful, you will find. I haven't done a survey before, but this was reviewed by the Wikimedia Research Committee who gave it the green light, and I am partnering with another researcher who does surveys like these on regular occasion. The survey is optional, and to be honest (TheArtist AKA Mr Anon) I am not sure what comments like the ones you have left above are supposed to achieve. I wouldn't have run this survey if I didn't see merit in it- it has taken months to prepare. Will the survey alone improve dispute resolution? Of course it won't. But it will give us an idea of where we stand now, and areas we can improve on. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 09:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Gosh, the "artist's" comments looked like plain old vandalism to me worthy of total striking. But I guess that's why YOU GUYS are the lead dispute resolution-ers. You don't tumble into the fray :-) Leading by example. CarolMooreDC 20:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
We try and keep things above board at all times. You develop that after doing DR for so long :-) Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 22:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Well said CarolMooreDC! I just censored the swearing in that comment without changing the meaning because people already replied to it; removing the whole comment would be confusing. Von Restorff (talk) 12:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation requests (RFM) process overhaul - mock-up

The Mediation Committee is looking at ways to simplify the RFM process, and as part of that examination is considering moving away from the current process of using subpages for all requests (not just those that are accepted). We've created a mock-up at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/A, which is fully functional and includes a working method of submitting a request. Please try the process out (it's not visible on the main RFM page, so don't be afraid to follow through the request submission past the page-save process) and offer your observations at WT:MC. The mock-up is based on a similar system at WP:AE, where it works without fuss. AGK [•] 22:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks interesting. I've left some comments there. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 00:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Strongly suggest using sub-pages. The only way to keep edit history intact. Rich Farmbrough, 23:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

Help needed

Hey all. We are in real need of some help at the dispute resolution noticeboard. It's easy to get involved, have a read over the dispute and make a few comments regarding the dispute. Feel free to use your own style - there's no hard and fast rules. You'll get the hang of it soon :-). Secondly, some of us are starting to develop a guide to dispute resolution at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution/Proposals/Dispute resolution manual and we need a bunch of test cases to write case studies around, so if you come across any disputes that you think fit under the categories listed at that page, please provide links here. :-) Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 11:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I've started to watch the DRN, and I can help there a bit. Regarding "getting more volunteers", one idea would be to utilize the existing lists of volunteers. There are three lists I'm aware of: Category:Third_opinion_Wikipedians; Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Volunteers (and Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal#Coordinators); and Wikipedia:Feedback request service. Two ideas jump out:
  1. Why not just use those lists when help is needed at DRN? These editors have already indicated their willingness to help content disputes, and I'm sure they'd all be willing to help with DRN. You could post generic requests on those Talk pages; or you could randomly select specific individuals and ask them on their Talk pages.
  2. Consolidate these three lists. The dispute resolution process is so complex - and here is one small step to simplify it. Just merge these lists of content dispute volunteers into a single list, ideally categorized by topic-area expertise. The RfC bot could still utilize the list, as could DRN, ThirdOpinion, and InformalMediation. If mediation is a special skill, fine, just make it a specialty within the single consolidated list of volunteers.
--Noleander (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
A thought: If a consolidated list were to be created, it may be wisest to simply take the Wikipedia:Feedback request service and declare it to be the merged list. For two reasons: (1) that list is largest; and (2) there are two bots that parse that list and pass-out jobs to the volunteers (one bot for RfCs; one for GANs). A lot of work went into the bot, and it would be a pain to re-work the bot to work on an entirely new list (and hence an excuse for persons to oppose the change). Consider just using that FRS list as-is. If a DRN issue comes up concerning History, grab a volunteer from the History sub-list. Create a new sub-list for Mediators. Expand the role of the existing "All RfCs" sublist to mean "persons willing to help out with DRN in any capacity". --Noleander (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

How about going to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions and suggesting that they do an article on this WikiProject? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I've poked the writer on their talk page. Good idea. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 11:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Best advice to give upon closure for no discussion when non-listing editor won't discuss

As all regular DR'ers know, all DR forums require that there be talk page discussion of a dispute before it is brought to DR, but we've all also seen many instances where the very problem is that the requesting editor has encountered an editor who simply won't discuss anything. I thought that the best advice to give to the requesting editor when I close a request for no discussion was to tell the listing editor to file an RFC if they can't get the other editor to click the "talk" link, but this dispute has caused me to realize that RFC also has a discuss-first requirement. I realize that particular dispute was perhaps an different situation in that the RFC requests were being deleted because the editor requesting them had himself/herself made no effort to discuss the matter before starting an RFC and that an RFC started by an editor who has made a valiant, but unsuccessful, effort to get discussion started might get a different reception, but is there something better to recommend in that situation? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

See also this just-instituted attempt to allow RFC to be used for this purpose. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Crime story edit war

Crime Story (film) spitefully edited as you can see my edits had legimate sources from the Los Angeles Times and DVD Talk [1]. I have written to the editor in person why and got no respone and the person has even been banned for 24 hours but has made no difference. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the way dispute resolution is done or the subject of dispute resolution, not for requesting dispute resolution for a particular problem. If you're sure that dispute resolution is what you want, choose from one of the options in the right-hand sidebar here (but after you've clicked on one, please be sure to read all the requirements and guidelines for whichever option you choose before making a request in that forum). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I initiated a discussion on the individual page see Talk:Crime Story (film) and have spoken to the editor regarding his/her reasoning but to no avail what else am I supposed to do regarding unreasonable editors. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The above question was already answered at User talk:Dwanyewest#Crime Story. This is WP:FORUMSHOPPING. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Fresh ideas

Discussions on possible streamlining of the content dispute resolution process. Input requested and welcome. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 14:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been poring over the results of the survey as well as a few other things, and thought it might be time to get input from others here. One of the questions I asked in the survey was "What kind of technical changes do you think would improve the dispute resolution process on Wikipedia?" and a common response was something along the lines of "reduce the amount of dispute resolution forums". This was supported in another question, "What issues do you see that make dispute resolution difficult?" where 43% said that there are too many dispute resolution forums, 39% said dispute resolution is too complex, and 30% said that dispute resolution is inaccessible and too hard to find. With this in mind, a few of us have been discussion about how to simplify things. This is just an early idea but like all things is one worth discussing. Part of the issue with dispute resolution is lack of continuity. A possible fix to this may be to amalgamate many of the random dispute resolution forums into a SPI style format, and it could act as a central record for all disputes. Once resolved, it could be archived and referred back to as necessary. In the concept idea, processes like RFC would stay in place, and MedCom or ArbCom would remain unaffected. It would solve the issue of complexity - essentially it would be a one-stop shop for dispute resolution, and could be a simplified format, structured in a way to make it a catch-all i.e.: a question in the request format like "What is the issue you are bringing here" or words to that effect which could generate responses like "Me and User:Example cannot agree whether X source is reliable" or "I'm concerned that X content inserted by user Y in article Z may have BLP issues". I would also think that WQA could be closed - RFC's in the past as well as the survey have identified issues with WQA and it may be time to consider marking it as historical - but that's a discussion for later. Initial thoughts on the one-stop DR shop idea? Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 10:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

While it doesn't address the record-keeping/consolidation part (itself a good idea), I'd thought WP:DRN was created in order to be a one-stop shop of that type (and to divert some of the "no admin action needed" material from AN/I). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
That was the original idea, however many other processes remain intact (like WQA, RSN, BLPN etc etc) and this can make things confusing, I guess. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 03:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
It still seems like a good goal for WP:DRN, and the idea of deprecating WP:WQA has been floated in the past (I'm really not sure what WQA is expected to accomplish at present). My understanding of WP:RSN, WP:BLPN, and similar was that they're supposed to be closer to wikiproject-type boards (flagging disputes about content rather than about editors), but I agree that there's strong pressure for threads to turn into editor-focused disputes. Establishing a policy of shunting behaviour-focused threads to DRN might help with that (something similar was tried, with partial success, at AN/I).
As far as I know, no process yet exists for consolidating information about the dispute resolution steps any given user has been involved in. Offhand, this is probably the sort of thing that should be proposed at one of the WP:VP subpages. The main stumbling block I can see is that unless acceptable content was kept very specific (only links to RFC/U pages, mediation cabal cases, etc. allowed, for instance), it could very rapidly run off the rails and be turned into a wikistalking or attack-page facility. Addressing that at concern the outset would go a long way towards making such a proposal attractive. Infrastructure and maintenance needed would be considerable (there are a huge number of users who have this sort of paperwork associated with them; you'd need to use a bot crawling the RFC, medcab, and arbcom archives to consolidate it all). Adding AN/I threads would get prohibitive very fast (and very prone to abuse), despite how useful that would be. Adding a record of warning templates would be even worse on both counts. Still an interesting and useful concept, though. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
DRN is designed to resolve content disputes, not conduct issues. The central noticeboard would be a combination of most DR boards, but a few things need to be considered. The main two are page size and how to ensure that a page doesn't become massive, the second one is lack of volunteers. There just aren't enough of us to deal with all disputes. Some editors that don't frequent boards like DRN will lend a hand at RSN or other places, so perhaps merging the boards together may encourage others to participate in other threads. The main one is how to deal with the size issues such a board may present. Any ideas? Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 10:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea how to find more volunteers. In fact, quite a lot of areas of Wikipedia are volunteer-limited rather than process-limited. The best I can suggest is to try to think of ways to structure things such that any given dispute takes up less volunteer time (allowing more work to be done with the same volunteer pool).
The main problem that I see with a consolidated DR board is that it would turn into what AN/I was in its worst days: a place for users to constantly attack each other.
If such a board had to be created, my own inclination would be to have a very formal protocol (parties involved give statements limited to X words, one administrator says "you guys should do X"/"sanctions X and Y are appropriate"/"this needs X volunteers from MedCab to do Y and Z", and two more administrators underwrite the first's decision (to limit the amount of "biased administrator" complaining). The problem is that this combines a lot of the hassle of arbitration with a lot of the variability of AN/I enforcement - it could end up being the worst of both worlds. The goal is to instead have something with the same "court of judgement" feel of arbcom (discouraging continued bickering _after_ administrator action) while being a lighter-weight process. If it can produce good decisions _most_ of the time, and correct _most_ of the poor decisions through a streamlined review/appeal process (get three administrators not involved in the original ticket to vet the decision from a review-noticeboard queue), then the number of cases that get bumped higher up the chain (to ArbCom) remains small, the amount of volunteer work needed on the one-stop DR board remains tolerable, and most of that work is less soul-sucking than AN/I type wrangling (because it's a report ticket system, not a discussion board).
In practice, any large change to the existing system will be difficult to implement, because people will rightly worry that it'll produce more work, more drama, or both. I wish you luck with your efforts. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Quick thoughts These are some general observations I've made.
  1. Dispute forums are often used as another venue to continue the conflict. We should discourage that with a notice or something. Or perhaps having petrollers who issue -STOP- notes.
  2. We should encourage users to start to resolve the dispute between themselves before others arrive. Perhaps adding a section like "What are you willing to do to work toward a middle ground" that we suggest each person answer when adding a dispute to a forum.
  3. Lack of volunteers helping is a significant issue, Perhaps some of the low-traffic forums could be combined into a single forum broken into different sections. That way people visiting for one section might be encouraged to help in another.
Maybe these ideas will spark others. 64.40.54.68 (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Some good ideas.I think the second suggestion is a good one, and is something we could easily implement at the dispute resolution noticeboard, for example. I think some consolidation would also be a good idea, but think it's something that should be discussed in length first. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 11:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I recently started helping out at DRN. Perhaps it might be of interest discussing what motivated me. For a long time I have thought that there might be a place where I can give back to Wikipedia in the areas of noticeboards. What attracted me to DRN first was the basic idea of a place where someone with a problem has first contact with the system. I figured that I might not be able to help with a problem but I certainly can point people to the proper forum. The second thing was the idea of focusing on content, not conduct. To me, checking content to see if it meets our standards is far easier than dealing with behavioral problems. Some folks are good at people problems, but I am more comfortable with a "just the facts" engineer-like approach. Finally, the warm reception I got when I started helping made me feel that someone more experienced had my back and was there to correct me if I screw up. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

  • As highly technical people, we sometimes fall into the trap of assuming that more tools and more options will cover a wider range of needs. In a lot of cases, it just makes things more convoluted. I think WQA is a strong example of that. We could do a lot worse than folding that into another dispute resolution forum, at least as a starting point. For all the limitations on the RFC/U and ArbCom, there's a lot of clarity that comes from knowing those are pretty much the last two steps on a user conduct issue, when the other forums have failed. Even if those forums don't give a complete resolution, they do move things forward in a way that AN/I doesn't. I guess what I'm saying is if we had a clearer road map of where disputes should go as they escalate and evolve, the whole system would be in better shape. Incidentally, if we build that road map, we'd find that there are some parts of DR that aren't really working, and there are some gaps that have yet to be filled. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, my understanding was that RFC/U wasn't supposed to be anywhere close to a "last" step; its nominal goal is to get a clear reading on what problems the community feels exists with a given user's activities. While there's a large gap between how these are _supposed_ to run and how they _actually_ run, they still in practice serve as a clear way of documenting that a given problem exists (which is otherwise usually a "take my word for it" situation). Both ArbCom and AN/I respond more favourably when a petitioner says "Foo is doing something disruptive, and this pattern of behaviour was established previously in the RFC/U --> here". It'd be _nice_ if comments on such RFCs could be calm, civil, and geared towards identifying solutions in addition to problems, and it'd be _nice_ if the users whom the RFC/Us were about would take that in good faith and re-think their actions, but even in the absence of both, such RFCs still serve a useful function (and one that's considered important to have completed for most later steps in DR). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Had a busy day today. I'll reply how I do from time to time, with @ symbols :-)
@Chris Thomas, more volunteers will make things exponentially easier. I think we can accomplish this by making dispute resolution simpler, and consolidated. It will need structure, without a doubt, but it should be explored. A balance will need to be found between structure and freedom of discussion though.
@64.40.54.68, if a DR volunteer is able to issue cease and desist orders, or something, then this may help. Users need to realise dispute resolution is not a game, and abuse of the system won't be tolerated. I too think that consolidating some DR forums will pool the volunteers we have, and hopefully get more disputes resolved. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 11:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is a fresh idea; how about a dispute Triage? An editor posts an issue of any kind there, and a volunteer sorts it and moves it to the right place, whether it be DRN, SPI, article talk or user talk. When something is moved, a link will be left so users can find it. With some simple automation, this could be one-click. I can see the automation putting a message on the top with instructions such as "On hold: all parties must be notified (link to instructions)" or "Moved to user's talk page so problems can be corrected before resubmitting. Problem: Three days have passed without all parties being notified" or even "Moved to user's talk page so problems can be corrected before resubmitting. Problem: contains personal attacks (link to page explaining how to stay cool and be logical)."

With a triage step, the user will see a single place to bring every issue without having to figure out what all the different noticeboards are for. The noticeboards will spend less time telling people they have come to the wrong place. Flawed submissions will be bounced back with clear instructions explaining how to correct the problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I've added a rfc template. Hopefully we will get more comments and ideas. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 13:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Responses from Noleander to top-level suggestions

  • Agree that DR process should be simplified. Agree that consolidating multiple content-oriented DR noticeboards into one is good. But not behavior issues .. that would be too much. Suggest that one content-oriented board be merged into DRN every, say, six months. I would start with OR, RS, etc. Doing all at once may be too confusing & objectionable.
  • SPI format: I assume "SPI format" means that individual issues have their own pages, and that there is a master/index page which lists all the active issues via transclusion? Simliar to WP:FAC or WP:Peer review or WP:GAN? I agree with that suggestion, provided it does not create yet another new page. We need to reduce the number of pages, not create them. The existing DRN page should simply be evolved into an SPI/FAC format. The underlying individual DRN issue "pages" would be (new) per-issues sub-pages comparable to SPI, PR, GAN, or FAC. If an RfC or mediation is involved, it may still be useful to have a small stub/placeholder DRN sub-page, which just mentions the RfC/mediation and links to it.
  • Closing WQA: I've had little experience with WQA, but if it is dormant, it could certainly be shut down. Plus, that is a behavior-based noticeboard, and thus is lower priority because I believe content-based dispute resolution process needs more attention.

End Noleander responses

  • The general idea was to have it as to a format similar to WP:SPI, but something like WP:FAC could work too, I guess. My main issue with WQA is that it's often a cesspit, and isn't really an attractive way to resolve disputes, because it often consists of editors calling each other asshats. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 11:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by TransporterMan:

  • Part of the problem with virtually all content DR forums and similar noticeboards is that they are, with only a couple of exceptions, mere projects and are not policy-based. As a result, the guidelines and restrictions adopted for them are subject to being ignored and either under- or over- enforced. Steven's original concept for, and formulation of, DRN would have been very similar to what is currently being proposed, but it very quickly changed.
  • Another problem is that content DR raises false expectations. It is not just happenstance that most of the disputes that come to DR are brought there by either newcomers or editors who, though they have been around awhile, have not been much involved with the formal, administrative, or bureaucratic (depending on how you prefer to see it) side of Wikipedia. They fail to realize that the best that DR can do is to offer advice, mediate disputes, and make referrals. I'm slowly coming around to the point of view that the biggest favor that we can do for both DR applicants and for the encyclopedia as a whole is to very quickly do one of four things and then close the dispute:
  • Identify the dispute as a conduct dispute and refer them to conduct DR (whether this should be to a specific form of conduct DR, to a laundry list of conduct DR, or always to ANI is a matter for further discussion).
  • Identify a clear policy-based solution if it exists, or at least identify that the answer to the dispute is controlled by policy and make a referral to a policy noticeboard such as RSN or BLPN, but in either case do that very quickly and then walk away.
  • Refer the dispute to MEDCAB/MEDCOM, but if, and only if, all the parties are willing to go there.
  • Refer the dispute to RFC.
What we should not do for conduct disputes is to attempt to negotiate a solution or do mini-mediation when there is no clear policy-based solution or policy-based path, as we currently do at DRN. Why do I say that?
  1. Because it requires a maximum of volunteer effort both in number of volunteers to handle the number of cases presented and in commitment of time and effort on a per-volunteer-per-case basis. Any of us who have undertaken to negotiate or mediate a solution knows that it ordinarily requires an effort of hours over days, whereas most volunteers at DR forums tend to want to only be involved on a drive-by quick-fix basis. As a result, we see time and again a volunteer give a quick response to a request and then never show up again, or only show up again after the disputants have made the listing a dramafest. Other requests never get a response because no one is willing to expend the time and effort needed to engage in such a mediation or negotiation. That merely increases applicant frustration and dissatisfaction. (The brutal truth, moreover, is that most volunteers are not very good at those kinds of mediations or negotiations.) By avoiding them, we maximize the utilization of the volunteers which we have, as well as encourage would-be negotiators or mediators to take their talents to the mediation forums where they can do the most good.
  2. Because RFC is always a better solution than a settlement negotiated between a small group of disputants. This is because it brings the attention of the community as a whole to bear, which is far more likely to end in a result that is best for the encyclopedia as a whole rather than a result which merely satisfies the small group of editors involved in the dispute.
To return to where I began, however, the only way this discipline could be enforced is if the structure of the new forum (or perhaps better, a retooling — and perhaps renaming to "Dispute resolution clearinghouse"? — of DRN) could somehow be made binding by policy. I could say more, but have said too much already. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Your comments are well-informed and reasonable. A couple of thoughts: (1) Your second resolution is "Identify a clear policy-based solution if it exists, or at least identify that the answer to the dispute is controlled by policy and make a referral to a policy noticeboard such as RSN or BLPN, but in either case do that very quickly and then walk away." - That is good advice; but there are often 2 or more policies involved (e.g. whether to call a person "Irish" or "Anglo-Irish" may touch on NPOV, OR, BLP, V, and RS); could DNR be viewed as a "one stop shopping" for all content- based policy disputes? (2) There are so many noticeboards: wouldn't be nice to see some consolidation? (3) The RfC process is very fundamental: but there are times when it fails: sometimes because too few uninvolved editors respond to the RfC; or because the discussion is "hidden" in the article Talk page. Could DRN be viewed as a mechanism to ensure sufficient attention to under-supported RfCs? --Noleander (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
(1) and (2): I agree that there has always been some confusion about how noticeboards such as NPOVN, ORN, BLPN, and RSN fit into, if at all, the DR scheme, but I'd like to believe that each of them has at least the potential of concentrating watchers who have a particular interest and expertise in the area of that noticeboard, unlike a general-purpose DR board like DRN. What I meant by the sentence you quoted is that if the dispute is quickly and easily "solved" (more about which in a moment) by the fact that what one disputant wants to do is, for example, clearly and unmistakeably supported by a source which is not a RS, then we'd just say so and be done. If there was some question about whether or not it was an RS, then we'd refer them on to RSN and be done. It's not my experience that most disputes have stacked issues, instead they usually come to us with just one problem. (3): The Wiki philosophy is built around the ideal of conciliation and presumes, as an unspoken (?) corollary that some disputes will not, and perhaps should not, ever be resolved, or at least will not be resolved until the community as a whole gets around to focusing its attention on them. It is for that reason, I believe, that the community has never been willing to adopt any form of binding content arbitration. Since RFC is the best and most specific place to bring the attention of the community as a whole to a dispute, its failure to draw responses must be regarded to mean that the dispute in question is one of those that the community is not ready to address. In that situation, the policy enunciated in WP:CONS#No_consensus should kick in. (Thus begging the questions of whether the Wiki philosophy was ever realistic in the first place or, if once realistic, is still realistic for a group the size and complexity of Wikipedia today. But we can't go there, can we, eh? And see the study in this edit...) In light of that fact, RFC is, in effect, the court of last resort at WP and should be treated as such. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I've been thinking about a reply for a few days. I think in some ways you are right - the first thing we should do is ensure that the dispute falls under policy, and is not just someone ranting and raving about something random. I don't think that handballing to disputes instantly after we find this out is a good idea though. Quite often the response we get is "I tried there and didn't get a response" or when a dispute has multiple facets. We should maybe have a sorting system and try and deal with disputes that way. Knock back anything that clearly isn't ready for dispute resolution. Add some structure. But the problem with our system is that DR is far too spread out, and there just aren't enough of us to resolve them yet. In my view, one reason that there aren't many of us is because when a new editor rocks up to DRN, they see massive walls of text that have been unattended. I think over time we can build up our volunteers. We need to make DR inviting - and I'm not sure how to do this as of yet. Barnstars? Stuff on the reward board? Dunno. But imho consolidation will make things easier in the long term, and should be considered. Make it structured so it's not a mess, but in my view creating a system where we handball disputes to another forum right away would make DR worse, not better. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 11:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I have been giving more thought to the idea of a triage. Here are some ideas that might be worth considering. This is all blue sky thinking, so it no doubt contains flaws, but some of it might work.

For now, let's call it "Dispute Resolution Starting Point" (DRSP).

DSRP is a place where disputes are sorted and sent to the right place, or possibly kicked back to have flaws fixed before resubmitting. The intent is to no longer ask some new editor to figure out whether he needs to go to WP:RSN, WP:COIN, etc. and to no longer asking the noticeboards to deal with a constant stream of complaints that belong somewhere else.

First, we get all the various noticeboards to agree to bounce back anything that hasn't been through DRSP. (Insert comment about herding cats here.) We provide a wrong-place-top/wrong-place-bottom template that automates the bouncing.

We also ask them to please put in a bit of time helping at DRSP in appreciation of DRSP saving them time (Insert sound of crickets here.)

Next, we get each noticeboard to define what their requirements and prerequisites are -- what criteria the DRSP volunteers should use when sorting. (Insert comment about nailing Jello to a tree here.)

Now we force the editor lodging the complaint to actually read a page of instructions. Radical, I know. At the very least we make the type the word YES, but I would like to see two or three multiple-choice questions about the contents of the help page (Insert howls of protest here.)

The next step is to have the editor answer a series of questions which automatically populates a submission to the relevant noticeboard. until all answers are approved the submission stays at DRSP, collapsed and with a note saying "waiting for input from user X; See inside for details". All of this should be automated so a single click will post a notice for the more common flaws.

Finally, we submit to the noticeboard and replace the DSRP submission with a link to it. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting idea, and not at all outrageous. See my above comment. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 11:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I have been thinking about getting buy-in, if and when we have a plan we all agree on. Will, say, WP:COIN accept the idea of someone else triaging reports? If so, can we get them involved in the triage? We could argue that the user clicking on the "I think this should go to COIN" button is essentially the same as submitting to COIN, and offer to make our sorting criteria "send everything." Arbcom might want to opt out of the triage, because nobody submits a case to arbcom - they ask arbcom to look at it and arbcom accepts or rejects (is there any other noticeboard that does that?) Still, if we get arbcom to agree to our plan that would go a long way toward convincing other noticeboards to sign on.
BTW, I keep using the term "noticeboard" but WQA and Arbcom are not actually noticeboards. Is there a better collective term? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Another idea: how about a form they have to fill out instead of letting them edit using WikiMarkup? This could be made smart: "Error: You submitted a SPI case without specifying a sockmaster", "Error: you requested checkuser in a way that could link a username to an IP address" "Error: you are attempting to file a case at DRN, but you have never posted to the talk page of the article you have listed". The errors would be more friendly with fewer acronyms and would have help pages supporting them, but you get the idea. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

@Steven re handballing: Actually my brain-deadening-length comments above were towards a triage-type concept with the possibility of a little active DR there, in the case of clear policy solutions. @Guy: How about "Dispute Resolution Clearinghouse" as a name to avoid the noticeboard concept? I do think, however, pursuant to your "herding cats" comment above, that this is probably a pipe dream, especially if we start trying to shut down or control what happens at places like RSN, BLPN, 3O, etc.. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I like "Dispute Resolution Clearinghouse". WP:DRC is taken, but WP:DRCH is open
As for The Cat Herding Problem, I think we can split the noticeboards, WGA, arbcom, etc into two categories and explain why we do this to the user. First we have the category that wants us to triage and will send anyone that bypasses the triage back here. Second, we have the category that wants nothing to do with us. For those, we can still deal with anyone who chooses us first, and we can still direct them. Let's assume that, say, COIN wants nothing to do with DRCH, and someone comes to DRCH with a clear case of a COI problem. We can say that we think that person should file at WP:COIN and that COIN has opted out and thus we cannot assist. Lets assume that, say, WP:RSN loves us and sends everyone here. In that case, we can send the user to a fill-in-the-blanks form that constructs a proper RSN case, then one of us can check it and click on the button that moves it to WP:RSN. If we do things right, our service will be appealing to the noticeboards and more and more of them will sign on. I am pretty sure that we can get a lot of help making scripts that automate the triage as much as possible. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. I have a few thoughts though - would we make it across the board for all? I think a RFC after I release the DR survey results may be effective, since we have some facts and figures around the feelings of the community. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 12:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm a fan of the triage concept. Key to its success would be to initiate the actual resolution process as quickly as possible, so that there isn't a huge wait time as you wait for someone to assign your issue to the proper location. Otherwise we risk stifling some of the disputes that are currently resolved quite easily. I'm not sure how to maximize that efficiency. Perhaps the triage itself would have to be a form a dispute resolution, where easy disputes are dealt with right then and there. To take the triage metaphor to its logical conclusion, some nurses would deal with simple problems immediately without sending it to another forum. Again, not sure how feasible that is either. Just that we have to remember to balance WP:NOTBATTLE with WP:NOTBURO. Part of the existing problem with the DR process IS the amount of bureaucracy. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
What I said. Or, to quote Dave Hester, "YUUUP!" On the other hand, this is, perhaps, part of the problem of having enough DR volunteers, but right now most of us who work in DR are active in multiple forums. I give 3O's, work extensively at DRN, and am a coordinator/clerk at MEDCAB. I already find it worrisome that I'll decline a 3O for, for example, having too many editors involved and recommend that they take it to DRN. When they get there, who do they find if they look around a bit? Me, the very person who declined them at 3O. I dread the day when someone who I've done that to posts a message on my talk page which says, "Waitaminute, if you're a volunteer at both DRN and 3O, why didn't you just help me at 3O rather than giving me the bureaucratic runaround?" I can, in fact, explain the fact that the varying guidelines of those projects allows me to do things at DRN that I can't do at 3O without violating the terms of the 3O project, but when its a [noob fanboy] editor who just wants to know why his [wholly unsourced, total OR] My Little Pony posts keep getting deleted by some know-nothing vandal [administrator with 35,000 edits, a pristine block log, 10^25 barnstars, and Jimbo's Own Blessing], they just really aren't going to care. I fear that referrals from a triage page may have much the same effect and increase the feeling of DR complexity rather than mollify it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Re: "I dread the day when someone who I've done that to posts a message on my talk page which says, 'Waitaminute, if you're a volunteer at both DRN and 3O, why didn't you just help me at 3O rather than giving me the bureaucratic runaround?' ", have you ever considered sockpuppetry? (Runs and hides while everyone pelts him with rotten fruit and the occasional brick...) --Guy Macon (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
@TransporterMan, I think we need to consider which option is better - a triage page where people move along quickly to the correct forum but it creates another process, or a few consolidated dispute resolution forums that act as a one-stop-shop for disputes. Or we could leave things exactly as they are...but I think that's the worst option of them all. The survey results are currently being reviewed for errors, but once that's done (hopefully very soon) we can take action based on it's results. WQA is in my sights - it did the worst in the survey by far and I think it's a process that causes more harm than good. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 03:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad there's some agreement on the precautions we need to take. I think the point is that it's a good idea in principle, but it's going to come down to the actual implementation. Perhaps if we could get most of the wikiproject to agree that the idea has potential, we could start getting into specifics. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
@Guy: No, but perhaps I should right now. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Progress update - restart discussion on ideas

So, things have been rather slow as of late, with the last proposal (Binding RFCs) not going so well. It may appear that very little has been happening on the surface, but in honesty many of us have been in discussions, with ideas on how to improve dispute resolution. Some of these discussions are still in progress, so I can't say a lot, but possible proposals will be the streamlining of dispute resolution, by simplifying or eliminating some dispute resolution processes. The early results of the dispute resolution survey have shown a lot of improvement is needed, and has highlighted some of the more problematic dispute resolution forums. Over the next week or two, I will start compiling the results of the survey, and will then write them up - though some early aggregate results may be thrown around in discussions to see if we can move a few reforms a bit quicker. My first aim is to address WQA - it has fared the worst in the survey for effectiveness, by quite a lot, and an alternative process is something we should maybe look into.

I'd love to get the discussion going again. It's been rather quiet here recently, and I've been so busy jumping through hoops to get the survey rolled out that I've missed a lot, but also haven't had much time to move things along. Let's throw out ideas again, perhaps start with a discussion on WQA and possible alternatives. We're a clever bunch and I'd like to see what we can come up with. Look forward to moving things in DR forward. (Oh, and if any of you are going to Wikimania, see my sig) </shamelessplug> Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 09:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikimania. And right in town so I can go!!!
After the non-conflict rest of working on workshop related articles/activities for a couple months, I'm back in the middle of disputes on Wikimania's probably biggest dispute area -Israel-Palestine. In my case usually regarding "is all criticism of Israel fringe and all critics (in BLPs) antisemitic, or should criticism of Israel and praise of its critics occassionally be allowed on Wikipedia if there are 40 High Quality WP:RS and 50 quotes countering the one criticism/critic." Obviously an exaggeration (except in some cases). Anyway the point is if you really want to make the workshop dramatic, controversial, relevant, etc. use an example from that topic. Especially regarding criticism of the Israel lobby in the United States. Be Bold! CarolMooreDC 13:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Finally looked at schedule and not sure from name which Wikimania presentation/workshop is from this group. Need to publicize it? CarolMooreDC 03:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dispute_Resolution/Archive_2&oldid=1136052716"