Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dispute resolution noticeboard page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33: 14 days

Dispute Resolution (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dispute Resolution, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dispute ResolutionWikipedia:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionTemplate:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionDispute Resolution articles

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

This FAQ page may be developed or changed over time.

Q1. Why was I invited to the discussion?

You have been listed by a filing editor in hopes that the discussion of content can be continued here with the guidance of a volunteer. You do not have to participate but are encouraged to.

Q2. Are resolutions enforceable?

The dispute resolution noticeboard is informal, and resolutions formed here are neither binding nor enforceable. DR/N relies on all involved parties to self-enforce the agreed upon resolution. Should the dispute continue with all or some involved parties ignoring the resolutions that they participated in, this may be considered as part of the next step of the DR process. Editors who continue a dispute after accepting a resolution may be perceived as disruptive by refusing to engage collaboratively on consensus.

Q3. If resolutions are not binding, why should I participate?

Wikipedia only works when editors collaborate to form a consensus. Discussion is as important in the editing process as editing itself. While participation is not a requirement at DR/N, refusing participation can be perceived as a refusal to collaborate, and is not conducive to consensus-building.

Q4. How long does a case last?

It depends on the dispute, but ideally no more than a week. Volunteers will attempt to resolve disputes as fast and as thoroughly as possible. A case can remain opened for longer than a week, if the participants are nearing a compromise.

Q5. Why are the volunteers not responding to my case?

The noticeboard has to handle a large number of cases, despite having only a small pool of volunteers. Some volunteer editors will not open a case if they are uncomfortable with or unfamiliar with the subject matter. The bot will flag the case after a set period of time if a volunteer's attention is still required.

Q6. Why was I asked to step back from a discussion?

Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked step back from the discussion if warnings for disruptive behavior go unheeded. This is to keep the discussions civil and focused on the goal or resolution and discourage further disputes from arising out of the DR/N filing. Generally an editor will recieve a warning first and will be given the opportunity to contribute in a civil and respectful manner. Should warnings not be heeded, comments may be collapsed and/or personal attacks removed entirely in some cases after warnings as well.

Q7. What is the role of a volunteer?

Volunteers are editors that assist in resolving disputes as neutral third parties. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority on the noticeboard or on Wikipedia.

Q8. Are there any requirements for volunteering?

No. All editors on Wikipedia are invited and encouraged to participate. The noticeboard is always looking for new volunteers.

Q9. Why are disputes over an editor's conduct not allowed?

Other boards are better equipped to handle behavioral disputes. Conduct disputes should be directed to formal arbitration in extreme cases, or If you need immediate assistance or intervention from administration, use the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.

Q10. Why was my case closed?

The noticeboard is only for content disputes that have been extensively discussed. Conduct disputes, disputes with no discussion, and disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums, should not be brought to DRN. However, don't be afraid to post a request, if it's outside of the noticeboard's scope, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

Q11. Why is prior discussion required?

The dispute resolution noticeboard is not a substitution for talk pages. Editors must attempt to resolve the dispute between themselves before seeking outside help as part of a collaborative effort to form consensus.

Q12. How extensive should the prior discussion be?

While time may not be a deciding factor, discussions that have only gone on for a day, and/or consist of only one or two responses, do not qualify as extensive. Edit summaries are not considered discussions.
While we accept disputes with discussions on individual user talkpages, discussions that focus on editor conduct or that only involve a minority of the dispute's participants may not qualify as extensive.
It is always recommended that discussions on content take place on the relevant article talkpage to involve as many editors as possible to form a local consensus for the subject. Sometimes editors will request discussion on their own talkpage in order not to disrupt the flow of other discussions on the subjects talkpage when a dispute is between only a small group or just two contributors.

Q13. The other editor refuses to discuss. What should I do?

Repeatedly refusing to discuss changes, especially controversial ones, is considered a conduct issue and should be brought to the administrator's noticeboard. Although Wikipedia supports bold editing, refusing to discuss can be problematic and is discouraged by Wikipedia's editing policy.

First-timer

@Robert McClenon: You seem to be running the show here (alone, for a really long time), so you probably want to take a look at my first attempt at moderating a discussion here—Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Mukokuseki#Undo. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 18:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Snowmanonahoe - Thank you for taking a dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon, could you please review this dispute resolution if you have the time. Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does a mention for reference in an article mandate notability

I have a dispute with another editor and could use some feedback from other editors. I appreciate any input. My main issue revolves around the Off topic / Notability guidlines. There is a person (who at this moment does not have their own wiki-article) that is in the news about participating in unlawful activity. In the reliable sources that are cited, they mention that this person was employed at a notable organization as a high ranking member. All reliable citations use one single sentence that reads, "Individual, who held this position at XYZ organization, is being charged with _______ crimes" (Or some variation of that single sentence). All reliable sources state zero correlation between the notable organization of employment and the crime being committed by the individual. There is no minority view that there would be any association between said organization and the illegal activity. There have been several editors (some who were IP editors), that have felt the need to place that information onto the page of the organization. One of the early editors to add this information felt the need to mention in their edit summary that this might not be the best place for the information and may merit deletion and to discuss it on the talk page. After challenging the inclusion of this information on the organizations article talk page, all of the editors who were involved have been pinged and asked to come discuss, as of yet none have responded(over the course of several weeks), minus one editor who seems pretty hellbent on keeping the info pertaining to the illegal, un-associated crimes on the page. His defense for inclusion of this individual's crimes within the organization's article is that mere mention for reference of his employment at said organization equals notability for that organization. In an effort to try to compromise with keeping the information on Wikipedia, as it should not be completely removed, I tried to re-locate the information about the illegal activity with creation of a page for the individual it was pertaining to, or move it over to the actual organization in which the illegal activity was associated with (Not to be confused with the notable organization in which where he was employed and has no relevance to). The editor in opposition won't budge even when I and one other editor believe that our arguments based in policy seem to be quite clear that the information is off-topic, and not relevant for inclusion. I am assuming good faith, but this editor has made it clear he will not compromise on re-locating the info and is showing patterns of WP:STONEWALLING. What is the best course of action? I will note that I tried to remove the content but new un-involved editors would come and just drop the information in again and again (there was another editor who removed the content as well), unaware of the talk page discussion(efforts to compromise) going on, and then proceed to ignore pings to come discuss their addition on the talk page. MaximusEditor (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MaximusEditor, this isn't really the place to bring up specific disputes. In your case, I would suggest the BLP noticeboard. When you post there, remember to specify which article you are talking about; I can't make that out from anything you said above. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Seraphimblade,

I appreciate the response. I guess I was hoping for maybe a more generic way to deal with editors ignoring discussion rooted in policy and stonewalling before making a formal complaint on the dispute noticeboard. Do you think if I have issue with that sole editor I should submit a ticket for dispute resolution or do you think the BLP noticeboard would be a better place for this type of situation? MaximusEditor (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wouldn't consider the BLP noticeboard any "formal" thing at all. It's just kind of a way to say "Hey, this looks like a BLP problem" and get some more thoughts on whether it is, and if so what should be done about it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Etan Ilfeld

Please note that after a brief look at the newly-opened Etan Ilfeld dispute, [1] I have removed the disputed content as a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy. [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time to shut down DRN

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

Are you prepared to propose anything as an alternative? DonIago (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The remaining mechanisms that do (sort of) work: Talk page discussion, noticeboards, RfCs, 3O even. Bon courage (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that DRN does serve a purpose. DRN is to be used when talk page discussion was not successful, there might not be a dedicated noticeboard for the dispute, an RfC might be unnecessary or not the best option, and 3O is only for simple (two editor) disputes. Instead of shutting down DRN, I think we should improve it.

I have collected the outcomes of all DRN requests starting from April 2024 (starting here) and here are the results (if a single request was closed due to multiple reasons, the most significant reason was chosen here):

Outcomes of all DRN requests starting from April 2024
Outcome	Number of requests
Ongoing	3
Out-of-scope (conduct issue)	2
Out-of-scope (huge dispute; consider RfC instead)	1
Out-of-scope (other)	3
Failure to list and notify all parties	2
Failure to notify the parties	3
Already pending at another forum (RfC)	4
Already pending at another forum (SPI)	1
Already pending at another forum (ANI)	4
Already pending at another forum (3O)	1
Already pending at another forum (NPOVN)	1
Already pending at another forum (BLPN)	1
Lack of thorough discussion on talk page	15
Lack of recent discussion	3
Abandoned (by filing party)	7
Declined (by other party)	9
Nonspecific	1
Uncivil	1
CIR issues	2
Dispute between IPs	1
Agreed to an RfC	6
Agreed to discuss on appropriate WikiProject	2
Successfully reached consensus at DRN	1

We can see that there was only one request that was successfully resolved at DRN during that time, this one, and even that one was questionable (the IP that disagreed with 6 editors and consensus didn't agree with the outcome, but said "Feel free to close it").

We can also observe that the most common closure reason was the lack of thorough discussion on the talk page.

Considering this, I think we should come up with ideas to improve DRN including its request form. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty damning. The question is: how to propose deletion. I'm supposing MfD, but maybe it's something else? Bon courage (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The closest thing that springs to mind is the deprecation of the User conduct RFC process, and that was an RFC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) ([3]). The old Wikipedia:Mediation Committee was shut down via a RFC there as well. MrOllie (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that's probably the most appropriate venue for a formal motion to shutdown DRN (my own feelings on the idea are mixed at this time). It looks like that's where the discussion that led to the shutdown of WP:WQA occurred as well. DonIago (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked, no one is forced to participate in the DRN process? Dumuzid (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That could actually be part of the problem Bon courage (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so, but I am not seeing the negative effect here. It is staffed by volunteers, and if you don't like it, you don't have to pay any attention to it. I can certainly see the argument that it is ineffective, but "a drag on Wikipedia" strikes me as inapposite. Reasonable minds can certainly differ, though. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not thinking of me personally, I'm thinking of wasted editor time in general. I'd rather editors "in dispute" spent time pursuing mechanisms that would likely lead to a result & improvements to the encyclopedia, rather than just spinning process wheels. This "ineffective" process is actually baked into WP:DR policy, so it's not that easy to ignore, especially for inexperienced editors. Bon courage (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's also important to note that DRN serves a double purpose. DRN was originally meant to be used to identify the next best DR step for a specific dispute and it still continues to do that (usually pointing to RfC's). But it also provides mediation (especially after the disbandment of MedCom). It currently serves both purposes, but the question is: should it? It might be a better idea to somehow separate these two into their own sections/noticeboards: one for figuring out the best DR step (and assisting with it, e.g. helping in writing an RfC), and one for mediation. It would still work the same way (optional participation, run by volunteers) but it might be a bit more concentrated.

So from the above data, we can see that most disputes (that weren't closed) ended up being referred to somewhere else (RfC, WikiProject), and actual mediation is being used less and less.

What do you guys think? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 09:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]