Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

user space

Are we going to move the intro out of user space (i.e. Sandbox7, Sandbox8 content)? Gerardw (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I just hadn't gotten around to it yet. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 20:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Guide?

I am not sure what the purpose of this board is, nor the idea behind. Is it to post what is going on, and then be directed to the correct board? Phearson (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Though I'm not positive I think it's intended to handle most content and conduct dispute issues - the type of stuff that would normally be @ WP:WQA or WP:CNB, and also the type of stuff that just ends up at WP:AN/I a lot of the time. Kevin (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Background is here. Gerardw (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

I am setting automatic archiving here (28 days) because I see all the messages. If you do not like it, please come here for making an consensus to keep it or not. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Level 3 headings

Could it be possible to change the way the level 3 headings work on this page? I have posted a thread here and added this page to my watchlist, but it is very hard for me to tell when the thread I'm interested in has been commented on, as most of the time the automatic edit summary simply says "→Discussion:". Maybe there is a way to auto-generate the level 3 headings so that they can be distinguished from one another? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I too have observed this, but I'm not too sure how to implement this. Will ask around and see if I can come up with anything. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

After a little thought, it seems like the best way would be to make a template similar to Template:NewDYKnomination that would take care of all the formatting issues automatically. I can have a go at making one if you want (though I am by no means an expert). — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I've made a very rough draft of a submission template in my userspace at User:Mr. Stradivarius/NewDRNsubmission. To see it in action, have a play around at User:Mr. Stradivarius/NewDRNsubmission/Sandbox. It's still only a first attempt and needs a lot of polishing and usability fixing, but the basics are there. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I've made significant improvements to the template - it's looking a lot more like a usable tool now. It's still severely lacking in documentation, though. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"Initiate a new discussion" button not working

The "Initiate a new discussion" button is not working. Instead, it creates a new article in mainspace. On an ironically related noted, so I don't have to re-type the whole thing out, can an admin turn Maher-shalal-hashbaz and CSD tags into a new section on the noticeboard? Thanks. Singularity42 (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Header where the button code is located - hopefully this should fix the problem. I'm not an admin though, so I can't look at the article you accidentally created. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I've left a note on the deleting admin's talk page. You should be able to get at your comment when they have a spare moment to look at it. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Notice

The Centralized discussion template still links to the closed VPP discussion. Should it be deleted or redirected here? Peter jackson (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably redirecting here would be the best course of action. Steve Public (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Posting Template

I just posted a new discussion on the board and have to say that I'm rather confused by the setup for this. First of all, when you click "Initiate a new discussion", another button doing what seems to be the same thing appears on the subsequent page. I'm also confused by how the text already set in the edit box divides the whole thing into questions. Some of the questions themselves are also baffling, mainly "What can we do to resolve this?" If an editor already knew what needed to be done to resolve the issue, why would he be posting on the noticeboard?--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The questions are designed to make it easier for people watching this page to understand the dispute, as opposed to just posting a wall of text about the situation, but the last question is a big vague. I've updated it now. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. And incidentally, sorry that I didn't exactly properly format my discussion. Like I said, I found the questions layout a bit confusing and wasn't sure how I should explain the issue in that manner.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Archiving/space

I'm setting the Miszabot archiver to archive after 2 days of inactivity. Otherwise this noticeboard will quickly become unreadable. Consider using collapsing closure templates as well. --Danger (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Archiving done and collapsing, I thought of having another template made for here to collapse discussions. Also, when its archived, it will automaticly de-collapse. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I used the archive top and bottom to comment submissions that were either stale (about to hit the 48 hour mark) or were resolved. I don't see any need for a new template. Hasteur (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I've increased the timeout to 3 days, that gives people at least one "working day" to make further comments. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:NewDRNsubmission

Hi everyone, I've finished making {{NewDRNsubmission}}, a template made for making new submissions at this noticeboard. It generates the level 2 and level 3 headers automatically, and has a few new features since I mentioned it above. It can now list up to 20 users, it can handle capitalization correctly (providing it gets the correct input), and it autodetects the submitter's username. I think it's ready to go live on this board, and I invite you all to try it out at Template:NewDRNsubmission/testboard to see how it works.

I welcome your feedback on the template, and I'm particularly keen to hear of ways to improve the documentation and the guides. (As well as the usual documentation there are two guides, a general guide and a guide specifically for the edit intro on the noticeboard edit page.) I have tried to remind users as much as possible to stick to be civil, stick to content and keep things brief, but I am sure that it can be improved. So, please look it over, suggest any changes you want, and if I have your blessing, I will put it up live. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking good, but might I suggest the article wording be changed to something like issue, or dispute, as this board encompasses both content and conduct issues. But the rest looks good, though perhaps cut down a bit on the documentation, and add it in the actual preload template, as commented out text that contains instructions which can be deleted when they type? We still want this board to be as user friendly as possible, but this template is a great idea and with some tweaks should be ready for use. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 12:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly I can change the wording, yes. Can you be a bit more specific? Do you mean the "article" field in the template itself, or something that I've written in the documentation? I'll get on to writing the questions in the preload page now. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

After a hard day of updating the template, I have been bold and put it up live on the noticeboard. I also made a live test which was successful, so everything looks to be going smoothly. I worked out what you were getting at when you mentioned the article wording, and I have made the article field optional. If the dispute is just about other editors, then the level 2 heading is now generated from the usernames of those involved. I've also reworked the preload file as promised, along with the rest of the documentation. If there are any problems with any of this, then feel free to undo straight away. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

...and I see the latest poster has ignored the template completely and posted a new thread at the top of the page. (Sigh) If we have any repeats of this kind of thing I'll revert back to the previous version myself. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The Tevfik Fikret dispute looks more promising, although the submitter fell into the trap of only including one user, which brought up an error. I've changed the template so that instead of an error it outputs the submitter's own username, and I've also changed the preloaded text to remind users to include themselves if they are involved.

One other thing is that the user included content about the dispute itself in the "usercomment" field. If this continues we can just drop it from the preload text so that people will be forced to include that information in the overview field. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The next submission included two level 2 subject headers by accident. We could fix this by requiring users to fill in the subject/headline box, but then there would be no way to ensure that the level 2 headers and the level 3 headers are the same. (The level 3 headers would continue to be generated by the articles/usernames as they are now.) I'll make a small change to the preload file to try and remind people about this, anyway. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Success! We have our very first fully-well-formed report using the new template. May there be many more to follow. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, having a lot of disputes on Wikipedia would not be a good thing, ahem... — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm Be careful for what you ask... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Impression

If someone clicks to see the hidden discussions, they'll find apparently neutrally phrased requests for help dismissed as "canvasing". That won't encourage use of this page. More explanation would be useful. Peter jackson (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "hidden discussions". If you mean the links to diffs, these are the opposite of "hidden" as their very purpose is to show you the relevant information. A request may well be phrased neutrally, but it is still canvassing if you only contact people or projects who may be expected to support your position. See WP:CANVAS. Paul B (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I just worked out what this meant. Peter, you're referring to the discussions that have been closed, right? I agree that saying a report is canvassing without giving any evidence seems a bit rude, making no judgement about whether canvassing actually took place in any of the reports or not. I think in such cases closing as "malformed report" and leaving a note on the user's talk page is probably a better idea. Steven, I think you were the closer here - do you have any comments on this? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh right, he's referring to the three "need your help" sections opened by user:HudsonBreeze! Well, they are pretty obviously contentless requests for support rather than descriptions of disputes. The template provides explanation of how to use the page. Paul B (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

As I assume this is in relation to the user:HudsonBreeze Rape/Sri Lanka reports and as the closer of the reports here is my reasoning. 1. They got multiple reminders to not raw-edit the page (yet the continued with it anyway) 2. All they said is that they needed help with the articles in question. When I dug into the articles I noticed that there was already a conversation and that HudsonBreeze was on the minority side of the consensus. As such it felt like to me this was a solicitation for people to come take their viewpoint on the articles. Hasteur (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I completely messed that up. I thought that it was User:Steven Zhang that closed those, but I see I was wrong. My profuse apologies for the confusion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

As for the closes, it's probably not a good idea to close them having no input at all - we can at least clarify why canvassing is seen as bad and give the submitter a little information on what they can do in their situation before we close. If doing that can prevent an edit war, it can only be a good thing in my opinion. Thanks for trying to help out though - it is most welcome! — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're getting my point. The idea of this page was supposed to be for people to request help with disputes. Now it's reasonable enough to say "you haven't done the bureaucratic form-filling right", I suppose, but to describe a request for help in and of itself as canvasing seems to defeat the whole object. Local consensus can be overturned by global consensus. If someone objects to a local consensus they can appeal to an appropriate place in a neutral way for others to join in, possibly changing the consensus. If this isn't the right place in a particular case, then it is the right place for people to ask and be told where the right place is. To all apearances for someone not exploring beyond this page these requests have been rejected out of hand, which isn't encouraging to others. Peter jackson (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I definitely second this. Biting the newbies (and the not-so-newbies) is not good anywhere in Wikipedia, and that goes double for here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem with not filling out the form correctly is that this board then gains the reputation and practice of an intramural spitball fight (of which we already have more than enough at ANI, AN, WQA, 30, etc). I didn't close it out of hand. I actually looked at the articles they were wanting help on, their histories, and the talk pages to try and understand how their single undescriptive sentence merited our involvement. I also dropped a blurb on the submitter's talk page explaining why I closed the discussions. 2 further editors came in and endorsed the viewpoint at the talkpage. Please take care before you start slinging bad faith assumptions Hasteur (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't think we need to labour the point here. The discussions in question have been archived, the discussion on the talk pages seems to be going smoothly enough, and I don't think we have any more need to talk about it now that we know each other's opinions. WP:AAGFAAGF guys, come on. ;) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hasteur, you're still not getting it. Neither I nor anyone else suggested you were acting in bad faith. I was simply pointing out some effects on some readers likely to be produced by the way you did it. Peter jackson (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed broken archive links

I've changed the archive links from {{/archive ... to {{DRN archive ... because the templates were breaking when being moved to the archive pages. Now there is a link from Template:DRN archive top to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/archive top and from Template:DRN archive bottom to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/archive bottom. Watchlisting those links is probably a good idea, in my opinion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I've adjusted the archiving parameters and the Archive names (leaving behind redirects to preserve already archived threads). I assume people won't have a problem with searchable archives and a link to them. Please discuss if you have a problem. Hasteur (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Busy through August

Hi everyone, just to let you know that I'm going to be busy this last week of July until near the end of August, so I probably won't be able to respond to these DRN threads in a timely fashion during this time. I'd be grateful if some kind editors could help fill in the gaps in my semi-absence. Thanks! — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Will keep a closer eye on this page for sure. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 19:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Meaning of "Guide to this noticeboard passage"?

In the "Guide to this noticeboard", does the passage "this is not the place to discuss disputes that are already under discussions in other forums" mean it should not be used if the issue is being discussed on an article talk page? Jc3s5h (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No, actually, it's important that talk pages are used before using this noticeboard. I'll clarify the meaning in the header of the page. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Timetable

This board says "The noticeboard is now undergoing a trial of one month, to see how things work." What is the end date for this trial please? I ask because my impression is that this is just another drama board with no satisfactory and specific focus, contrary to policy. I intend to !vote to have the board shut down and deleted per WP:CREEP and so would like to know when this is best done. Warden (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The thread you're looking for is Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Dispute_resolution_noticeboard_-_Stage_2. I would imagine you feel that this board is drama filled based on your forced inclusion with the rescue template discussion. If anything this board has performed very well in the month and there is a decent proposal to close out some of the lesser used noticeboards for this one. The purpose (as you've missed the enumerations before) is to negotiate a resolution to a dispute without using some of the more formal and sanctioning methods of dispute resolution. Hasteur (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Your comment Warden about this board being instruction creep, actually isn't instruction creep at all. Sure, other boards exist. This one has structure. Some people have complained about the structure, but I don't see less posts with content like "This user did this edit and I don't like it" a bad thing. That's forum shopping. This board was designed to direct content disputes away from ANI, but that's not possible if admins enable the users that post content disputes onto ANI. Not all disputes can be resolved, but I feel this board has done a decent job thus far. I note that while many have been negative, saying things like "It doesn't work" etc, you aren't offering alternatives. This board is still in it's infancy. It might not be the perfect solution, but at least I'm trying. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This board seems to be just another place to bitch and moan, with no power to enforce anything. This will be my last interaction with this board; in my view the board is a failure. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This board will not enforce on content disputes. No board will, actually no form of Wikipedia dispute resolution will enforce content disputes. This is no different. It's designed to facilitate open discussion and outside input from others to reach a consensus, in a structured format. If you're after enforcing content, then this isn't the place for you. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

And, indeed, this not being an administrators noticeboard, this board also does not have the power to enforce in conduct disputes, though I think that we all hope that the admins who participate as neutrals here might be willing to do so and that the resolutions that come down in this board will be sufficiently supported by consensus, good faith, and good reason that enforcement recommendations made by this board will be carried out by an uninvolved sysop, or at WP:AN or WP:ANI, without much further discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

How's experiment going?

I have something that has been a dispute and if my final edit gets reverted I'll go to either BLP or NPOV noticeboard. But since Editors Assistance just brought me here, was curious how this experiment is going, since it came out of a long RfC I was involved in. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be going OK so far. It's still in it's infancy but we're getting there, for sure. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 19:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Couple comments on things that need clarifying or adding:

• Archive: Need to list them by number so people can see how past disputes went. I had to search history for one.
• Purpose/Guide:"This is not the place to discuss disputes that are already under discussions in other forums." Maybe clarify to "forums, besides the talk page." Newbies and others might get confused.
• Purpose/Guide: Since there are "clerks", it's not clear if clerks or anyone can write the resolution.
• Purpose/Guide: What about multiple issues? Sometimes an article will have one or more sentences/paragraphs/refs that are issues with BLP, RS, POV, etc issues and one hates to run around to all those sites and be accused of forum shopping. If this is best place to come, perhaps you can be explicit. Also, in general, in problematic articles, it is best to bring one issue at a time; only related issues; all issues if they are inter-related? Or is that just too much to ask the guide to go into?

Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, how are changes to guidelines made? Can anyone edit the template, whereever it might be hiding? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Idea re conduct disputes

What would everyone think about adding a requirement that conduct disputes can only be closed:

• (a) by an uninvolved sysop
• (b) by any uninvolved editor if an uninvolved sysop has indicated before or during the discussion that they are willing to consider implementing any enforcement, if any, which is recommended in the closure or
• (c) by any uninvolved editor if the consensus arising from the discussion is that no enforcement action is to be recommended?

Just a thought. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think (IMO) that we want to stay out of any kind of enforcement program. There are plenty of places that the dispute can move forward to for handing down sanctions (AN, WQA, 3R, Mediation, Arbitration). It's my understanding that this page is to try to negotiate a resolution to the problem without using any of the "sticks" in the toolset. By structuring the page this way it adds to the "Attempted Dispute Resolution" that the sanctioning bodies like to see prior to handing down a sanction. Hasteur (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This is related to merging Wikiquette Assistance/Alerts here, which I think is a bad idea. It's not a "dispute" when editor(s) start insulting other editors because they disagree with them. It's a behavior issue.

Now if the issue is WP:OWN or WP:POV where editors keep reverting the most sensible changes despite multiple editor complaints, this is a good place for them to see that others also agree they are acting inappropriately. If they refuse to change their behavior, it's time for WP:Editwar or RFC/User. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That's right, Carol. My thoughts were generated by a comment at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Dispute_resolution_noticeboard_-_Stage_2 by Beeblebrox that "WQA ... serves a useful purpose as a place to hash out disputes without blocking (generally) being on the table" along with the fact that the WQA guidelines do, in fact, say "Avoid intiating a request if ... You want blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures." Though I do like DRN, I'm still of the opinion that it needs to distinguish itself from other DR processes and have a clear place in the DR hierarchy so that it doesn't contribute to what might be called noticeboard creep. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I understand the question... I would tend to think this could probably sit as an entryway to the upper levels of dispute resolution. Don't break out the administrative/community toolsets unless there's a obvious need for suspension of privileges Hasteur (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

At the Pump discussion I said, "I also feel, however, that the hierarchy of DR (as most clearly set out in the {{dispute-resolution}} template) ought to be changed to put WP:EA in the Tips section (as it's a venue for getting individual help, not solving disputes) and to make the sequence under the Negotiation section be, top to bottom, WP:TPG, WP:3O, WP:WQA, WP:DRN, WP:RFC, and WP:MEDCAB, with text in WP:DR and the guidelines at WP:WQA and WP:DRN stating that WQA and DRN should be regarded as alternatives, not sequential steps, and that use of one precludes the use of the other on a first-come, first-served basis." What do y'all think? (Whether nay or yay, your answer might be better given at the Pump, rather than here.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone did make the point at the Village Pump that going to Dispute resolution rather than "tattling" to Wikiquette might solve the problem better. But then sometimes the dispute is minor or better brought elsewhere and the real problem is someone being an a$$ who needs a warning. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion requirement

In the "Guide to this noticeboard" I would propose to add:

• This noticeboard is not for disputes which have only been carried out through edit summaries or which have not received substantial discussion on a talk page.

This would exclude disputes, usually but not always, WP:3RR or slow-mo edit wars, in which one or all parties fail or refuse to take the dispute to discussion. This same rule is applied at Third Opinion. If we don't do that, and this listing does generate discussion, then the initial discussion which ought to be recorded on the article's talk page is likely to take place here instead. An alternative formulation, which would allow for this board to be used as an incentive to discuss, but which would keep the initial discussion in the right place, might be:

• While disputes which have only been carried out through edit summaries or which have not received substantial discussion on a talk page may be listed here for the purpose of trying to get substantial discussion started, if discussion does begin here it should be copied to the most appropriate talk page for further development and the listing here should be closed, subject to relisting if the discussion should come to an impasse.

What do y'all think? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

IMO, I want to see at least some attempt of communication (Article Talk page or User talk page) to demonstrate that the reporter of the dispute has attempted to explain what the problem is to the other disputant before they open a report here. Hasteur (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, if they can't be bothered to discuss it on the talk page first then it does not belong here. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added the provision to the page header. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Because I don't know where the template is so I can review its history and because there is some overlap between Purpose and Guidelines, I'm not sure what you've changed.

Also, this sentence of Purpose/Guide remains a bit confusing: This is not the place to discuss disputes that are already under discussions in other forums. Maybe clarify to "forums, aside from the article talk page." Newbies and others might get confused. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Carol, the template is Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Header and the diff to my edit is here. I didn't include the word "article" in my edit because I wouldn't want to reject submissions just because the dispute was discussed on the disputants' talk pages instead of on the article talk page. How about "forums, aside from the article or users talk pages"? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

DRN as an appeal forum

The current listing template includes:

Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

But the listing for DRN at WP:DR says, "This noticeboard is not designed to retake existing disputes", and that's reinforced by the "This is not the place to discuss disputes that are already under discussions in other forums." in the guidelines, as noted by Carol, above. If the response to the "what steps have you taken" question includes any other form of dispute resolution, or perhaps includes any request for help outside this forum, whether ongoing or completed, is the correct response to close the request with a comment that disputes which have been previously listed elsewhere are not within the scope of this board? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: If that's wrong, someone should probably revert this closure. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Understand this is just my feeling about the decision, but I would think that if a user wants to present their reasoning for why something should be we should at least accept their report with good faith. Obviously this good faith is not unlimited. If a User tries here after beeing shot down at 30, BLPN, RSN, etc. we should probably pass on the offering. I undid the closure of the female entertainer mentioned above because I think there's a decent amount of issues and the response to the posting from YL&M seemed to explain and refute the situation thoroughly. The suppositions of sock puppetry seem to be a real concern.

The 2nd issue (About the BLP) I think can stay closed, because it takes 2 people to have a dispute (IMO) Hasteur (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Is your position that we should decline requests where other forms of dispute resolution have been, or are being, pursued, but should be willing to accept them from other types of forums such as, in this case BLPN, so long as the discussion there have ended or been closed? Or is it that we should just accept everything, period? Even if there's an active discussion there? I'm not implying any criticism. My concern is that while I'm slightly concerned about forum shopping, I'm far more concerned about a discussion being spread out over multiple locations where different neutrals come to different conclusions in a manner which allows the disputants to cherry pick the answer that they like best. Though such an attempt will almost certainly be pointed out by the cherry picker's opponents, it just complicates, confuses, and prolongs the drama. By declining everything that has been listed somewhere else, any of us who sees it here and wants to comment can always go to that other forum to weigh in or can join in the discussion on the article talk page, thus preventing discussion fracture. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Under Parliament of Australia - some meddler has put the words 'United States'. This is non-sense and should be removed asap thank you.

Parliament of Australia - some meddler has put the words 'United States'. This is non-sense and should be removed asap thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.155.113.36 (talk • contribs) 15:39, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

In what way is it "nonsense"? Also, this is the wrong area for such a discussion, as there's no "dispute" per se indicated regarding the article. Bring this up on the article's Discussion page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Archive vs closing

As discussed above, the bot archives pages which are more than 3 days old without an edit and the archived pages have a header that says, "This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. To enter additional comments edit the current main page and link to this page for context if needed." How someone is supposed to go about doing that last sentence is problematic at best. Can disputes be closed once they've rolled off to the archive? Should they be, or should they just be considered to be stale? (There's some discussion above that suggests that the answer ought to be yes.) Or should we extend the 3 day period longer? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I definitely think we should extend the archiving date beyond 3 days. It is not uncommon for a dispute to go dormant for several days only to heat up again (especially when there are only a few participants). I would give it at least a week.

As to officially "closing" discussions vs letting them go stale, my feeling is that the archives should distinguish between disputes that have reached a resolution and those that have not. Presumably the ones that have not been resolved either still need additional discussion here, or are proceeding through further Dispute Resolution steps... and we do not want the admins who handle those steps to think that a dispute reached a resolution here when it did not. In other words... don't "close" a discussion unless it has been resolved. Let unresolved disputes "go stale". Blueboar (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolution section

I am confused regarding the Resolution section for disputes. Is this reserved for use by clerks or does it exist for those involved in disputes to make proposals for resolution? In either event, how do we prevent the contrasting positions highlighted in the discussion section from simply being re-hashed in this section by the various protagonists (poor choice of word, but you know what I mean).

In the case of the current Wikipedia:DRN#Yadav_discussion, we seem not to be able to agree even whether the discussion should remain on this board or returned to the article talk page and then bounced back here again, possibly several times over. That procedural point, at least, needs some sort of resolution otherwise we are all wasting our time and that of everyone else. Can the resolution section be used even to resolve that sort of issue and, if so, how and by whom? - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The resolution section is generally for clerks to note the resolution that has been provided, but I don't see a problem with proposing a final resolution there. General proposals for resolution should be done in the discussion section, otherwise the resolution section will blow out massively. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 10:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Your response raises a further query. You mention that "resolution has been provided". Are people "providing" (or even offering) resolutions here or is it expected that the protagonists will somehow come to one? If the latter, then how is this noticeboard intended to resolve issues of a trenchant nature? Would someone eventually turn up and say "wrong board, take it to RfC" or whatever. Again, the Yadav discussion is an indicator of just how trenchant things can be, since one "side" seems not to have any desire to collaborate & just restates their position over and over. It will just keep on running unless some uninvolved people do take an interest, close it or what ever. I had no involvement with the old CNB & apologise if my queries here seem daft. It looks to me as if the ongoing football discussion may well be a similarly long-running example. - Sitush (talk) 10:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As the user who set up this noticeboard, I admit I have neglected to keep a close eye on the board. I will have a look over the discussion and add my opinion there. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 12:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologise. It was not my intention to put pressure on any person. I am just trying to clarify the purpose, the procedures etc, and it probably is not helped by the fact that I never saw the CNB. - Sitush (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't feel pressured at all :) My attention has just been stretched a little sparsely lately. Generally, the purpose of this board is to help resolve disputes, through discussion by parties and assistance by uninvolved users. Part of the problem is lack of participation by uninvolved users. If only there was a way to get more users interested in DR... Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 12:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Slightly, but not entirely off-topic: On the subject of neutrals vs clerks, I can't say what other folks do nor can I say that I do this absolutely uniformly but my loose standard here is I won't act as a closing clerk in a dispute in which I've entered into the discussion as a neutral and vice-versa, but I do feel free to take one role in one dispute and the other role in a different dispute. Is that what most everyone else does, too? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, yeah, that sounds about right. Just the same as admins do, isn't it? - Sitush (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

My feeling is that if I helped herd the disputants to a resolution or negotiated neutrally to get a resolution that I can step forward and close it. However, if I take a position on the issue (Like the Rescue tag a while back) I keep my hands off the resolution/closing buttons. Hasteur (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind personally, either way. All my activity lately has been closing the two big discussions (Caylee Anthony and Yadav) but I don't see an issue with us doing both. On a separate note, we should probably focus on clearing this backlog over the next few days. I'll mull over methods to encourage new editors to help out here, but DR is one of those tricky things that requires skill and experience, and good mediators are few and far between. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have had a complete change of mind on this issue for entirely practical reasons. If we were flocking with dozens of clerks and neutrals, perhaps we could have the luxury of acting as either neutrals or clerks, but at the present time it just won't work. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

"Stale" discussions.

I was involved in a discussion that was archived. There was no closure, but there seemed to be consensus among those who responded. The fact that the discussion was not closed causes a stop in work on the article in question. How does the DRN process (not to be confused with DNR) decide when a discussion is closed? The nom probably wouldn't appreciate my assuming a consensus and moving forward. Thanks for help. Cliff (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel your pain, having been involved in the recent Animal Farm in popular culture request that also went unresolved, and largely was not participated in by uninvolved editors. Frankly, it was pretty discouraging, though I am grateful to the editors who did join the discussion. In my case I opened up an RFC that thus far also has not drawn significant attention apparently. In the end, as the dissenting editors were not providing policy links to backup their reasoning regarding the article, I opted to go WP:BOLD and make the changes, and explain on the Talk page that I ws doing so and that if anyone disagreed I expected them to answer questions that had not been addressed and provide links to policies or discussions supporting their views. I wasn't thrilled about taking that approach, as it feels perilously close to owning the article, but I wasn't sure what a better alternative would be (maybe the DRN main page should provide a bit more guidance regarding non-resolved disputes)...frankly under the circumstances I considered proposing the article for deletion. I hope this helps. Your dispute sounds like something I may not be especially familiar with, but I could try to take a look at it if you'd like, though I'm not a clerk or such. Doniago (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem is not enough eyes on this page. I'm not so sure on a solution to this yet. I will think over it for a few days and take action. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 19:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Steven. If there's any way in which you think I can be of assistance, please let me know, as I'd be happy to do what I can to prevent others from having the same experience I did. I suppose one question I have would be whether admins in general are aware of the existence of this board, and whether or not it might be prudent to remind them of it. I'm not sure statistically how many arguments brought up here go unresolved, but I'd argue that one is too many. Doniago (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Per this and the prior discussion, I've increased the inactivity rolloff to archive from 3 days to 7 days. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

@Doniago: It did get some coverage here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and the link, TM. I would be curious to see whether the increased time leads to an increase in the number of resolved incidents (please note that I'm not aware of how many incidents tend to be unresolved in general). In my particular case the only editors who seemed to really participate in the discussion were pre-involved editors, and I was left feeling that no amount of time would necessarily have changed anything...not a comfortable feeling. In any case, I think the increased time is a good thing as long as the board doesn't end up masively bloated, and as I mentioned, if there's any way in which you think I might be able to be of service, please let me know. Thanks again! Doniago (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem is a lack of regulars here. There are only 2-5 regular neutral/clerks active here, depending on how you define "active." Since everything at WP is a volunteer effort, without a large body of regulars a lot of listings will not receive any attention simply because the few who are involved either get too busy here or elsewhere, don't care for the individuals in a dispute, don't care for the tenor or complexity of the dispute, don't see a way to resolve it, don't understand it, don't adjudge themselves sufficiently neutral, or the like. With a large body of regulars the odds considerably increase that there's at least someone who may be willing to address the dispute. Even with that critical mass, there are going to be times where no one cares to address a dispute. Another part of the problem is that I think the mission of a neutral here is foggy. At WP:3O the guidelines make clear the purpose: the opinion-giver is just a new pair of eyes. Here it's unclear whether the neutral is supposed to be a give-an-opinion and ride off into the sunset opinionator like at 3O, or is supposed to be a mediator who will engage with the disputants to try to hammer out a resolution (a thankless task if they're not all on board with it), or is supposed to be a judge, or a one-riot-one-ranger sheriff. I think the answer may lie in the "Purpose of this noticeboard" section which suggests that this is supposed to be an entrance-point into the DR system in which you're either going to get a quick resolution or a boot in the rear to some other DR process, but if I'm right about that then 98% of what comes here is going to get the boot and maybe 2% a quick resolution, and we're not doing a very good job on living up to either task (and I include my own efforts in that criticism). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I definitely agree that we could do with some more clerks here. I am now back from my holidays so I can help out more now, but there will be times when I am busy or can't help out for all the other reasons that TransporterMan lists. I also agree that there is a lack of clarity about what being a clerk involves, which may be dissuading new volunteers. I think I have played all the roles that TransporterMan mentions at one point or another, though, and I am not sure there is one correct answer there. Maybe sending more disputes to other venues would be a good idea and would help to give clerks a more concrete role, but I do think the number of disputes we can resolve here is a lot more than 2%. Also, changing the rules won't change the stale discussion situation if it doesn't attract new clerks, so we should bear that in mind if we do go for a change. It may be wiser to try and drum up support first, although I do remember reading a request or two for more volunteers. Are there any likely places that we haven't tried? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I might ask medcom-l. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you could post on the noticeboard that you are looking for clerks, what types of experience with WP they should have, and what functions you would like them to perform...maybe have different clerk "roles" depending on how comfortable they are with getting involved in others' disputes. To borrow a page from RFC, though this might be overly-bureaucratic, maybe disputes should be divided into categories as well, and clerks can indicate what categories they are generally more comfortable with.

Additionally, with regards to content disputes, it might be useful to explicitly refer to Wikipedia:SEEKHELP#Resolving content disputes, as it includes some other avenues for possible resolution, including a couple that I admittedly did not pursue in my particular case (given that the dissenting opinions I was dealing with weren't invoking policies or answering questions, I think I felt it was time to throw the ball into their court). I hope I'm being vaguely helpful in some way, shape or form, and I apologize if I'm just stating thoughts you've already had. :) Doniago (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the board is now on my watchlist, so I wouldn't mind helping as a clerk ocassionally. Of course the tetration discussion is out for me. Cliff (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Attention "clerks" of this page

Hi guys, just letting you know I will close a few of these discussions in the morning, mainly the one on US roads. I haven't read it in detail yet, but if my assumption is correct, co-ordinates are proposed to be used, which is disputed due to it being a pinpointed location. Ensure some variation of two coordinates have been proposed as a compromise, that is listing coords from start and end point of the road. Other than that, I'll look over it in the morning. Too many discussions here. Need to clean some off. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 15:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, as always. I was beginning to get a little bit worried about the size of the page too. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Road junction list discussion

Hi everyone, I'd be grateful if an uninvolved clerk could have a look through the road junction list discussion. I think it needs closing, and that it should be sent to RFC (two RFCs, in fact), but I would rather someone else go through it so that we can have another opinion. Steven, I see that you have expressed an interest in finding a resolution above, so if you want to have a look at it, go right ahead. Also, if anyone else gets there first, then you are welcome to have a look through and close it if you think that is appropriate. Your help, as always, is much appreciated. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, done. RFC is definitely needed for this one, far far outside the scope for DRN. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Archiving only closed threads

As Steven pointed out above, this page has got rather huge in the last few days, in part due to the automatic archiving being set to 7 days. This archiving period was meant to ensure that all threads received some response before being archived, but as the page size was approaching 400k I think it's clear we need to rethink this approach. I have a technical solution we can use, if people agree to it. We could alter the submission template to automatically substitute the {{Do not archive until}} template in each thread, which would prevent them from being archived until a specified date. When clerks close the threads, they would remove the DNAU text so that the thread can archive automatically. This would free us to make the automatic archiving period short, say 1 or 2 days, without the risk of threads getting archived with no responses. Does this sound like a good idea to everyone? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds like a workable solution. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, it's done, including the other issues brought up on the thread below this. (Live test diff) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:AIR/NC

I have added a discussion request for the subject WP:AIR/NC, but I'm not sure it is appearing properly. Can someone confirm that it has appeared on the page? Also, what is the correct tag to send the involved editors to show that there is a discussion going on here that involves them? Thanks

- Ken keisel (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ken, it's definitely not showing up correctly. Did you complete it using the "Initiate a New Discussion" button? I'm not sure how the powers that be will handle it in its current state. Also, as far as I'm aware there isn't a template to notify others of the discussion. When I posted a discussion here I just left a message like, "Please be advised that there is currently a discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard regarding an incident that may have involved you." Hope this helps. Doniago (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Just tried to fix it, and my initial change didn't do much. I'll keep working on it... Ravensfire (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought I was doing it correctly. Let me know what I did wrong. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I've got it. The problem was a single missing ] in the "How can we help" section. I ended up just doing a new submission rather than edit one of the existing ones because it was easier that way. Ravensfire (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's okay now as well. Ken, I think one problem may have been that you were including your signature in various sections, the instructions specifically say not to do that. I strongly suggest you look over the request as it stands and make any necessary edits...please Preview it before saving changes, thanks. Doniago (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Oops - I stepped on Doniago as we were both trying to help! Sorry for that - I'll step away and let you run with it, Doniago. Ravensfire (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It's showing now, but the "resolving the disput" comments are limited to the first few words, not the whole text. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Noticed that and cleaned it up...I think it's alright now, though I noticed you'd left out another closing bracket in the process. That may have contributed to the problems you were experiencing. Doniago (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The sigs might have been okay, but I know that closing bracket was causing problems. When I was trying to add the template, I started blanking one section at a time and it was the "Resolving" section that was the problem. Appreciate the cleanup you did. Ravensfire (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for all the help! - 216.206.49.251 (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it was the closing bracket that was the culprit this time. If there's a wikilink inside a template, the Wikipedia software tries to read the wikilink first, and if the wikilink doesn't end, then the software ignores the end of the template while looking for the end of the wikilink - in this case, going right to the end of the page. That makes for a bug that's quite hard to spot - thanks for doing the cleanup work everyone. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Conduct issue here, WP:ANI or where?

If a conduct issue is something an editor has done over and over in a specific situation, and over and over been criticized by a variety of noninvolved editors, and if the solution probably is some sort of monitoring or mentoring - or whatever, where is the best place to bring the issue? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

My (unqualified) understanding is that DRN can't make any sort of binding decisions. If you're looking for something more serious than just a conversation you should probably go to ANI. Doniago (talk) 23:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say that it depends if they are willing to be mentored or not. If they are, then it's just a matter of finding them a mentor. If they aren't, then it sounds like a good fit for a RFC/U. RFC/Us also aren't binding, but the evidence found in them can provide the basis for further action, whether that be mentoring or community sanctions (or no action at all). — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course RfC/U means finding a second person to support it, someone who doesn't mind being hassled with all the problems one is complaining about. Sigh... CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That should not be hard if the behaviour has been criticized by a variety of non-involved editors, and if the behaviour is pervasive. While DRN isn't binding, if you have concerns but are unsure as to whether an RFC/U is appropriate, perhaps we could be of use if there is some specific example you would like to bring to the table for discussion. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll give it a few days to consider and see if it's worth the effort of contacting others. Maybe my complaining here, there and everywhere lately will have some positive effect :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:NewDRNsubmission redux

I'd like to suggest two changes to {{NewDRNsubmission}}, but first let me thank Mr. Stradivarius for putting this together in the first place. It was excellent work.

• Of minor importance: Removal of the "[Dispute Name] resolution" section header. It's redundant with the reason for closure part of {{DRN archive top|<reason for closure>}} and is little used. If it's needed for a discussion that is resolved, but not collapsed, it can always be manually added.
• Something, I'd really like to see added: A new bullet point in the "Resolving the Dispute Section" following "How do you think we can help?" which would read

  * Have you informed the editors mentioned in this listing that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and insert "Yes" here.)

  (Indeed, I'd be open to making this even tougher by requiring them to give the diffs of the notices, but that might go beyond the "informality lite" nature of this board.)

I'd also like to see the notice line in the guidelines be changed like this: "You must As a courtesy, please inform all other editors if they are mentioned in a posting." Whaddayouthink? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It gets us into the structured and formal discussions, but we've had discussions that were almost archived untill the other editor was notified by a clerk that they're being discussed. Hasteur (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

As an alternative, could add a parameter for a link to the most recent talk page discussion section for this dispute. That link could then form a standard part of the page, making it easier to find the talk page discussion. Newer editors would probably leave it blank, but for experienced editors it may be a reminder to use the talk page. A brief notice could then be left on the talk page that it's being discussed here. Notifying involved editors can be nice, but if the dispute is large enough, that could be unwieldy. If talk page discussion is required before coming here, then posting a link on the talk page should be notice enough. Ravensfire (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the resolution header, and with the proposals about informing the other involved editors. I like the idea of a link to the disputed section on the talk page, but I'm not sure how well it would work from a usability perspective. Generating an automatic link seems like it would be adding another element to the form that the submitter could get wrong, and from my mediating experiences it has never been too hard to find the right section. There are also the cases where there is more than one discussion, or more than one heading, and I usually find I need to scan most of the talk page plus the article history anyway to get a full understanding of the dispute.

I think actually a better solution might be another (optional) template that can go directly on the talk page, like the {{3O}} template. This would have the advantage of catching the eyes of mediators scanning a page without increasing the complexity of the submission template, and it would also do a very good job of alerting participants on that page of the existence of the thread. We could also just change the language that we use now, adding something like "please include a link to the relevant section of the talk page". I was going to update {{NewDRNsubmission}} anyway per the thread above, so I'll just add the new changes all at once, probably before the weekend is over. By the way, everyone should feel free to edit the template. Even if you don't know template syntax, you can still edit the text parts without breaking anything (probably ;). The same goes for the preload text - edit away, we can always revert it if it breaks. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

So I got a bit bored at work, and put together {{User:Ravensfire/DRNNotice}} a notice template based on the 3O template as suggested. Thoughts? Ravensfire (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice work! I think we should move that over the {{DRN}} redirect. I do have a couple of suggestions - how about changing the picture to File:Peace dove.svg? Also, how about delinking the word "dispute"? I thought it would take me to the actual dispute listing at DRN, but it just goes to the general dispute resolution page. Finally, I think we should keep something similar to the 3O template in the small text at the bottom; maybe something like "You need to list this dispute at the dispute resolution noticeboard for other editors to respond". Sorry to be picky - how do my suggestions sound? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've updated the template. Have a look at the live test diff to see the results. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks good! Just updated my attempt at a DRN notice template. Basically, see the suggestions above. Really like the dove image suggestion, btw. On the main template changes, once we get the notice template done, I think changing the section about notifying the editors to point them to the notice template and that they can post it on the article talk page. Right now I think it will only work right if it's posted on the article page. I'm going to tweak it some to take a parameter so it can also be posted on a user talk page. There are existing {{DRNnotice}} and {{DRN-notice}} templates. The DRNnotice looks like the initial notice of "Hey! This exists!", while the DRN-notice looks more like what I'm working on. Probably leave the no dash alone, move the old DRN-Notice to a different name (DRN-notice old) and move mine to DRN-notice. Ravensfire (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Tweaked my template a bit more to get it working the way I want. The documentation should be updated shortly with an example with and without the article name parameter. Ravensfire (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I added another parameter to your template to link to the article thread (the thread name isn't always the same as the article name). I hope that's ok. I didn't notice that there was already a {{DRNnotice}} template - if I had then I would have probably chosen a different name for {{DRN-notice}}. I was just taking the naming convention from the {{AN-notice}} template, and didn't stop to check other names. Regarding the naming of your template, I think that your template and DRN-notice fulfil different needs, so we shouldn't move yours on top of it. As I see it, your template works well for article talk pages, and DRN-notice works well for user talk pages. There are quite a few people who don't like {{talkback}} templates and use {{whisperback}} instead, and I think we should leave users that choice here as well. I suggested naming your template {{DRN}} above because it's similar to the {{3O}} naming, and it's also simple and easy to remember. How does that sound to you? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, I gave your template a test run at Talk:Chiemgau impact hypothesis. See what you think. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Good job on the extra parameter! Using DRN as the name sounds good to me. I'm going to take the liberty of moving the temple over there shortly and go from there. Ravensfire (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Change template to solve off topic/"piling on" problem?

Recently I brought a minor specific issue here and I found that the more structured template for entering information at least provided some structure. However, as too often happens, the user replied with paragraph after paragraph of vague and inaccurate accusations about all sorts of unrelated alleged or even rumored! behaviors, with little or no proof, except maybe a link to some long discussion that was hard to follow. Users who monitor here did get things on topic, which doesn't always happen else wheres.

What I'm wondering (and also brought up as a suggestion at Wikiquette Assitance) is if it is possible in the template to put a word limit on counter-accusations on unrelated policy issues and demand diffs for them - or even request they make their own separate complaints on an appropriate noticeboard? It might help solve the off topic and/or "piling on" problems. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that's harder to mandate here than on ArbCom pages where they can enforce it by block if needed. I don't think that's a viable option here. I think what could help would be for something either in the template or in the page header stressing the need AND the benefits of being brief and too the point when posting here. This page is a lot about content disputes, so it's very easy for editors (especially newer editors) to post everything. For people not used to a wiki, using diffs is totally new and requiring them to use them can be intimidating. I'd rather see them post the Wall of Text Doom(tm) than not post, continue to edit-war and end up blocked. Ravensfire (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Wall of Text Doom(tm) - oh, please, create the essay!!! I've just never learned the trick of writing walls of text that make the less guilty person look much more guilty than the more guilty person. (Not to mention developed chutzpah to attack the innocent.) And it's frustrating dealing with people who are so good at it!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting suggestion. About the technical aspects - it would be possible to enforce a word limit in the template, yes. The problem is, that would be easy to get around by just posting the rest of the wall-o'-text in the thread afterwards. It would also be possible to create a diff parameter and require that it be filled in, but I don't think it would be possible to verify that it would be a valid diff - the best we could do would probably be to check that it had the text "http://" in it. I agree with Ravensfire's point about not all beginners knowing about diffs, and I think requiring them would start to make this noticeboard much more formal. Its original intention was to be an informal place to first bring disputes, after all. I think that the best defense against the wall-o'-text is probably just to collapse it down out of view, and leave a little note saying that you should keep things brief. I agree with changing the template wording too, and you should feel free to change the wording of the preload text if you can think of a more efficient way of doing things. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 21:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

If there's always a non-involved party to do the collapsing, that's great. I actually did it myself in a recent BLPN I initiated, but only after two other editors complained about off-topic back and forth, collapsing my own as well as other editor's comments. And I offered to revert it if there was a complaint, which there wasn't. But usually involved parties doing that doesn't work out so well. Carol Moore DC 23:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, definitely agree with you there. Involved parties collapsing each others' comments = big trouble. Hopefully there should be enough clerks around here that that won't be a problem. I have also done it myself and also created a summary of the collapsed post, just to show that the problem was excessive length, not content. This takes time, though, so it's only a good solution if you have the time. I'm not sure there's a perfect solution here, but please do share any other things you think could improve this process. There's bound to be something we can implement. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Example case

I've updated the example case to reflect the changes in the template. It does take up a lot of space in the edit screen, so I've transcluded it from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Example. That might be another one to put on your watchlists. Thanks :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Conduct disputes

Both the "Purpose" and "Guide" introductory sections say that the purpose of this board is to resolve content and conduct disputes. That was probably included (comment, Steven?) as part of the early concept of this board as an entry point to the DR system as a whole, but I suspect that most of us who work here would just as soon leave the conduct work to WQA. Does anyone object to removing the "and conduct" from those two sections? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I was going to comment here earlier, but I forgot. I agree with this suggestion, and I think it is logical based on the discussions about this board at the village pump. I would also like to hear Steven Zhang's thoughts before going through with it, as it is tied up with the idea of this noticeboard starting on a trial basis. (If we do go through with it, remind me to tweak the wording of the preload text as well, as that also mentions conduct disputes.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, to be honest. Issues that are brought to WQA are normally issues with civility, etc, but not all conduct issues fit into WQA. Some issues raised at DRN are content issues mixed with conduct ones. For that reason I think it somewhat is fitting to leave it there in some format, but after all it's not up to me (I don't own this page, after all) :) Best, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 09:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I've tinkered with the heading re this issue (and also re notification, pursuant to the changes in the filing template) and made a corresponding change at WP:DR. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

List dispute

Would someone take a look at List of My Little Pony characters (Round 2). Lists are not my strong point. Last time up I objected to the lack of sourcing and closed the request, but it seems to me that the two editors warring over this article are both treating it as a blog (with some ownership disputes thrown in) rather than an article and for that reason their dispute can't be resolved by reference to ordinary WP rules and principles. But I'm concerned that there might be something unique about lists that I don't know that at least justifies and gives a way to resolve this. Thanks and best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I've started the discussion. It's not really very clear what the dispute is at this point, so I'll wait for both parties to clarify before making any judgements on how to deal with it. There isn't all that much unique about lists though, I think, and I do agree with your assessment from the last time the page was brought here. There will definitely need to be some education done about our sourcing policies, in my opinion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Userbox

Hi everyone, check out my new DRN userbox:

{{Template:User DRN}}

This user assists at the dispute resolution noticeboard.

Transclusions

I also created a new user category, to which you should feel free to add yourselves: Category:Wikipedia dispute resolution noticeboard clerks. The userbox also adds you to this category. It's still very simple, so if you want to improve it or tweak it, go ahead by all means. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the "clerk" is a good word to use. Perhaps "this user assists at DRN" or something like that instead? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 20:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I just used that because it is the wording at the top of the noticeboard. You're right, it could make it sound like something more official than it already is. I'll go and change it now. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, changed. What do you think of the category wording, by the way? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Guide for volunteers

I created a guide for volunteers at this noticeboard at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Guide. Have a look and see what you think, and of course feel free to tweak it - or indeed radically improve it. I also added a request for volunteers to the main noticeboard page (the code is at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Header). Let me know what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 19:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ways to improve DR

Hey all, I'm currently engaged in a chat on ways to improve DR via email. If you want to join in the discussion, send me an email to cro0016gmail.com and I'll add you to the email thread. I have big plans :) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Volunteers

It seems to me that the volunteer system for this noticeboard is unnecessary. If the noticeboard relies on an anybody can help system, there is no need for a formal list of clerks. Thoughts? AGK [•] 08:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I saw the list more as a guide for people who might need advice to use these as go to people, as opposed to a list of who can contribute and who cannot. That's just my opinion though, others may fee differently. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 09:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's not strictly necessary, yes. I created it as more of an attempt to build a community round the noticeboard. It says at the top of the volunteer list that you don't need to be on it to comment on a dispute, which should hopefully be enough to clarify its nature to editors new to the DRN. The ultimate idea behind it is to get more uninvolved editors commenting on disputes here - I think it's a bit early to tell if it has actually helped though. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that, if we can use it to build more of a community and get more people involved, it is worth keeping. For what it is worth, seeing that page helped me to get involved in this myself. I do think it would be helpful to build a stronger community around the DRN; the volunteers list can probably help with that. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Though anyone can volunteer to help or to mediate a dispute, I think part of the success of this board is, first, its structure and, second, that a reasonably clear line is drawn between someone doing so and someone just jumping into the frey. By having that line, it emphasizes both responsibility to the mediator — that he or she must act as a mediator/neutral and not as just another combatant — and the authority that being a neutral brings and contributes to settling the dispute. The lack of that distinction, and the willingness of some would-be mediators to become combatants, contributed in some degree to the failure of WP:CNB and to part of the problem with WP:WQA. (And that's also the reason that I clearly state the role that I'm taking when I take on a case.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that. Fair enough! AGK [•] 21:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

And it also helps me with recruiting new mediators ^_^. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

We are now on the Dashboard

Thanks to the kind help of Chris G, the dispute resolution noticeboard is now on the dashboard! Have a look at WP:DBOARD to see the latest version. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar/award

After spending a little time here and dealing with some helpful disputants and some more difficult ones, I was thinking that it might be nice to create a barnstar or award for dispute resolution. It could be given to anyone who is helpful and productive in resolving a dispute - either someone helping other editors resolve a dispute or disputing editors who respond well to the processes. I know we already have a Civility barnstar, but this would be more specifically for dispute resolution. What do you think? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

There is already one. Indeed, I was recently awarded it. :) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....}|

I strongly dispute that barnstar! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I had no idea. That's great, then. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Editnotice

The editnotice at the DRN currently tells users to be nice, etc and to list a dispute by pressing the button. I would suggest that we add something suggesting tell users that they should only list a dispute here once other attempts at discussion have failed, with a link to the third opinion page. I filed a editprotected notice on the page but was told to get consensus here first. What do you think? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• IMO, We're a paralell to WP:30. We remind the users that there needs to be at least some previous discussion (Conflict's Talk page) before we consider the dispute. This doesn't mean that we auto-close disputes if they haven't filled out all the initial steps, it just means we're less inclined to accept those disputes. No change needed.Hasteur (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I've found that we work best once a dispute has already been through 3O. I've found that, in most situations, disputes brought here without being taken to 3O have had little discussion. I have often closed discussions and directed the disputants to 3O when it seems that DRN is premature. Maybe if the editnotice just suggested that attempts at discussion should be made first, proposing 3O as a possibility. It would not tell people that they must go to 3O, but that it is recommended. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Per the "Guide to using this noticeboard" This noticeboard is not for disputes which have been carried out only through edit summaries or which have not received substantial discussion on a talk page. It's my understanding that we're very prejudicial on disputes that haven't had a single scrap of commentary, however we want people to make at least a first attempt of using the article talk page. In addition the section in the report for them to list what other methods that have been used is usually a guide if the item is too new for our level of dispute resolution. Hasteur (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we really need to specify disputes be taken to 3O first - that sounds a bit bureaucratic to me. Maybe we could change the wording at WP:DR to better clarify the nature of 3O and the DRN instead? This also ties in with the larger debate about dispute resolution that we've been having, although it seems to have stalled somewhat of late, unless I'm missing something. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hasteur and Mr. Stradivarius on this one. I don't have any problem with disputes moving from 3O to DRN to MedCab, so long as they do it one forum at a time, but the fact is that since 3O is (supposedly*) only for disputes with only two editors involved then there are quite a few disputes which don't qualify for 3O first. Moreover, since Third Opinions don't "count" towards consensus (see my essay on that subject here), whereas the opinions of mediators here at DRN do contribute to consensus, the relief available here at DRN is different than that available at 3O. 3O also has a strictly-enforced discussion requirement, so it doesn't make sense to send a dispute in which there's been no discussion to 3O because it's just going to be rejected there as well.

*I say "supposedly" because there has been a huge amount of discussion at the 3O talk page about whether multiple-editor disputes should be removed or left listed so that someone might give an opinion even though there are multiple editors. Editors who have aggressively removed listings due to multiple editors — I was one of those — came under criticism with the feeling seeming to be that the two-editor standard was going to be left up as a deterrent to multiple party listings, but that removal of such disputes if they were listed was going to be discouraged, with the thought that the removal-for-staleness-after-six-days rule would take care of multiple party listings which were thought to be too complex and no one wanted to take. I have a good bit of experience at 3O (see here) and my personal standard is that I'll only remove a listing for multiple editors if there are 5 or more editors involved or if a third, fourth, etc., editor has joined the dispute for the first time after the 3O listing was made with the intent of addressing the issue listed at 3O.

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I would support a more general notice advising editors that there should be some prior attempt at discussion, rather than a direct pointer to 3O. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)