Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard

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)

Time to shut down DRN

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

---

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

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

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

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

I have collected the outcomes of all DRN requests starting from April 2024 (starting here) and here are the results (if a single request was closed due to multiple reasons, the most significant reason was chosen here) [updated at 15:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC) & 10:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC) & 14:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)]:

Outcomes of all DRN requests starting from April 2024

Outcome	Number of requests
Ongoing	2
Out-of-scope (conduct issue)	2
Out-of-scope (huge dispute; consider RfC instead)	1
Out-of-scope (other)	4
Failure to list and notify all parties	2
Failure to notify the parties	3
Already pending at another forum (RfC)	4
Already pending at another forum (SPI)	1
Already pending at another forum (ANI)	4
Already pending at another forum (3O)	1
Already pending at another forum (NPOVN)	1
Already pending at another forum (BLPN)	1
Already pending at another forum (AE)	1
Lack of thorough discussion on talk page	15
Lack of recent discussion	4
Abandoned (by filing party)	9
Declined (by other party)	9
Nonspecific	1
Uncivil	1
CIR issues	2
Dispute between IPs	1
Agreed to an RfC	6
Agreed to discuss on appropriate WikiProject	2
Successfully reached consensus at DRN	1
Unsuccessful requests	67
Successful requests	9
All requests	76+2

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

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

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

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

The closest thing that springs to mind is the deprecation of the User conduct RFC process, and that was an RFC at 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This isn't a proposal, but in terms of DRN basically redirecting editors elsewhere, I wonder how much of that could be solved by updating WP:DR accordingly. However, that's a pretty lengthy page. I wonder whether it would benefit from an easy-to-read summary. "In general, for X go to Y." Just brainstorming. DonIago (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The PAGs are meant to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. Perhaps we should just describe how disputes get resolved in practice (which doesn't, it seems, involve DRN) ? Bon courage (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Bon courage -- but I think there's a step missing in the reasoning here. Issues end up at DRN in my (admittedly limited) experience because the normal discussion process has already stalled. Things that end up at the noticeboard are self-selecting precisely because they are already fraught. Certainly you can say that there aren't a lot of good outcomes achieved, but compared to what, exactly? Do we think the outcomes would be better for those particular disputes without DRN? I am not convinced of that. And I think DRN serves not only as a means of generating outcomes, but also one of (to overuse a trendy word) vibes. Some of DRN's successes are invisible: namely in tamping down hard feelings and providing what is, for Wikipedia, a fairly neutral form of mediation. Again, no one has to like or take advantage of DRN. But I cannot see how it existing as an option hurts anything. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

In my experience, issues end up at DRN because new(ish) editors think that the process is going to result in a binding outcome that will favor their position. It doesn't, of course, because that isn't what it is designed to do. But that lack of an outcome that will definitively settle a conflict is also why experienced editors will just have an RFC instead. This is more or less the same situation that MedCom (and/or the Mediation Cabal) ended up in playing out under a new name. If DRN does get closed, we should be sure to erect a large sign informing people that going down this path once again won't be productive. MrOllie (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Is it doing any harm? Levivich (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

It's wasting time (editor time being the most precious commodity for the Project) and not achieving results. But the most convincing argument here is that it's a kind of 'labyrinth of uselessness' to lure in newbie editors so they waste their time wandering around rather than harming the wider project. Bon courage (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

On what basis are you concluding that the time is wasted, and that results are not achieved? Levivich (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

see the table upthread. Bon courage (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I knew you were going to say that :-D

The table upthread says:

• 71 DRN requests total since April
• Of those, 58 were rejected for some procedural error (out of scope, failure to notify, pending discussion elsewhere, lack of prior discussion, lack of standing, abandoned, declined)
• Of the remaining 13 that weren't rejected for some procedural error, 4 failed due to some problem during the DRN (incivility, CIR, nonspecific)
• Of the 9 that actually went through the DRN process, 6 resulted in an RFC, 2 with a WikiProject discussion, and 1 achieved consensus at DRN.

So why is this a waste of time, or unachieved results? It seems to me that the vast majority of DRN requests (58/71) are rejected and thus don't waste time. Of the 13 that went forward, 4 failed for some reason, and the other 9 successfully achieved a result. 9 out of 13 is an almost 70% success rate. What other processes on Wikipedia have a higher success rate?

More the point: there are many pages on Wikipedia where people do things that I think is wasting their time. But if they're volunteers and this is how they choose to spend their time, then I presume they don't think their time is being wasted, so who am I to take it away from them because I think their time is being wasted?

I don't think anybody's time is being wasted at DRN who doesn't want their time "wasted" at DRN, and I don't think DRN has any different success rate (almost 70%) than any other dispute resolution process on Wikipedia (RFC, 3O, etc.). Levivich (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

If a 'success' is to use another mechanism, then that's not really DRN's success. The real number of successes here is zero. Bon courage (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Why not? Levivich (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Because if DRN wasn't on the 'menu' of DR options, the disputants could have gone directly to an effective mechanism (RfC, noticeboard, WikiProject) directly. Bon courage (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Considering that 58 requests were rejected for procedural errors, do you think that people (especially newer editors) will be able to create a decent RfC if they were unable to follow DRN's rules? And there's still the issue that what if there isn't an appropriate noticeboard or the issue is out-of-scope of the related WikiProject?

Also, let's take this dispute as an example. What do you think would be the best DR step here? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The most often useful step would be for editors to accept that consensus is against them, rather than think they can keep 'rolling the dice'. But in this case there wasn't even really a 'dispute', more an unfinished Talk page discussion.[4] Bon courage (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that's not how I'd look at it. If editors can't pull off an WP:RFCBEFORE on their own and DRN helps them do it, that's a successful use of DRN. And DRN would be saving time, not wasting it; more time would have been wasted trying to do the RFCBEFORE on their own. Levivich (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

This sounds like an argument for replacing DRN with a 'help write a good RFC' service, rather than the 'lets spend a bunch of time on mediated discussion and then have a RFC eventually anyway' service it is now. MrOllie (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Yup, and in the case cited (which could have been an RfC maybe) we didn't even get that 'help'. The request was shut because the WP:BURO bar had not been cleared. Halpful! Replacing DRN with a "RfC before" thing is an interesting idea Bon courage (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Except that presupposes that an RFC is always the right outcome. If DRN can help avoid an RFC then it is also saving time, and that seems to have happened in 3 out of the 9 DRNs. In the other 6, DRN helped an RFCBEFORE. Either way, seems like it's saving time, not wasting it. Levivich (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I plan to use DRN to determine if a RfC is necessary after talkpage discussion stalled. I'm afraid of opening RfCs without help because RfCs may be seen as too drastic an escalation. Out of respect for other editors, I keep in mind RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable of WP:RFCBEFORE. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Part of the ways of working for the dispute resolution noticeboard, as described at the top and from what I recall in the discussions leading to its creation, is that it would direct editors to an appropriate venue for resolving a dispute, while also serving to resolve small disputes that can be handled more expeditiously. There are many editors unaware of the many different venues and thus post in the wrong ones, so I agree with the consensus of editors who supported the creation of this noticeboard that helping editors find the right venue does help overall efficiency. isaacl (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Yup, that's the reason {{help button}} exists Help!. Levivich (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich: That button has no projectspace transclusions outside the Wikipedia:Help_button/ prefix. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Bon courage, with all due respect, decontextualized this way, I think the stats are not helpful. Apologies for the grim analogy, but it's a bit like going in to an oncology ward and saying "the outcomes here are so much worse than the rest of this hospital, we need to shut this place down." I'm certainly open to ways to improve the process here or to make it more transparent, but as long as the volunteers believe in the mission, I cannot see forcibly telling them to stand down. But, again, reasonable minds can differ. Cheers. 15:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC) Dumuzid (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

That would have been the argument to keep WP:MEDCOM running. I'm all for shutting down useless WP:BURO. But in the end we'll need to see what the community thinks. Bon courage (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Length of statements

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

Hi. I have requested a fix here. Thank you. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kovcszaln6  Done --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Mitch Ames (talk) 09:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Request step 2 - grammar errors

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

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

There are two problems:

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

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

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