Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard

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

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

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

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

This FAQ page may be developed or changed over time.

Q1. Why was I invited to the discussion?

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

Q2. Are resolutions enforceable?

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

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

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

Q4. How long does a case last?

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

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

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

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

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

Q7. What is the role of a volunteer?

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

Q8. Are there any requirements for volunteering?

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

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

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

Q10. Why was my case closed?

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

Q11. Why is prior discussion required?

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

Q12. How extensive should the prior discussion be?

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

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

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

DRN Interpretation

Can you please explain why you reopened a closed DRN request that had been closed by User:Kovcszaln6? If you thought that a DRN case could be conducted with only the filing editor participating, when it was declined by the other editor, then you were mistaken. We mostly provide moderated discussion, which is a form of mediation. Mediation requires at least two participants, and is usually intended to try to work out a compromise. If you were mistaken and thought that there could be a one-party DRN case, then we now know what the misunderstanding was. Otherwise, please explain what you were trying to do.

By the way, I will probably be inquiring about the procedure for merge requests at VPP, and that may have been what you were trying to ask.

If you reopened the case due to the idea that there could be a one-party case, then this can be closed as a simple misunderstanding. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I interpreted the DRN as something not just about mediation, but just as a way of getting another person into the discussion. Its easy to decline any DRN that someone adds you in, and in my opinion it doesn't get anything done. It was written in the top of the page that the case filer (which is me) must participate in the request, but there is nothing that says a discussion can't occur without the other party. Rather, it actually implied that a discussion could still occur without the other party.

"This is an informal place to resolve content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups."

There is nothing in that paragraph that says the one being disputed must be active for the matter to continue. Thus, under that principle, I undid the revision and left it open.

It says in the very first sentence that the DRN is "an informal place to resolve content disputes", not as a means for mediation, and disputes can be solved on a one-party basis. It is apparent that mediation is not the main goal here, that's just a very common user request. Compromises aren't always a good thing either. Case in point, deciding between eating 100 hotdogs or 100 hamburgers is bad either way. But you can compromise by eating 50 of each, and now its suddenly a positive decision. Senomo Drines (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Senomo Drines - See my statement below. In your opening request, you wrote: I need a mediator to make sure the discussion doesn't derail. Also as a means of staying on-topic and not devolving into WP:PA. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC) You asked for a mediator, and the volunteer said that the other editor had declined to participate. I don't think that you have a reasonable basis for complaint. When you stated that you wanted resolution, we concluded that we could give you advice, which we did, and you got what you wanted, a merge discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did ask that, but I didn't yet understand the difference between the 2 because it wasn't stated in the rules. That is why the one who closed it, to me, seemed to be doing it without a basis. Since everybody here is agreeing that mediation requires 2 people, and that mediation is different from resolving, that should be a rule here and doesn't need to be a mere interpretation, see the section below this one. Senomo Drines (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you already replied prior to this message. I will check it now. Senomo Drines (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Precedence

Recently, a user messaged me admonishing me on my revert on the DRN close. I did that because I believed that to not follow a policy, but it seems like that policy isn't unanimously acknowledged by the community. That is why I think a differentiation between "mediating" and "resolving" should be stated in the rules, so as to prevent future incidents like this from happening. Mediating does require 2 people, but resolving does not, and I suppose in that case it could be taken as a discussion on what to do next rather than picking sides. Its far easier to justify a close that way in my opinion, when it is written in the law rather than in the spirit of the law. Senomo Drines (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Senomo Drines - Your opening statement included an answer to a question in which you were asked how you wanted DRN to assist you, and you wrote: I need a mediator to make sure the discussion doesn't derail. Also as a means of staying on-topic and not devolving into WP:PA. You didn't simply ask for resolution. You asked for a mediator. When the other editor declined to take part in mediation, the volunteer acted correctly in closing the dispute, because mediation was not possible. I don't think that you are being fair to the volunteers at DRN in expecting us to read your mind and realize that you now wanted some other resolution. When it became clear that you wanted some other sort of resolution, we provided you with advice. You asked for a mediator, and we said that could not be done. I don't think that you have any reason to complain. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people have asked for mediation. However, there is nothing in the rules that talks about it, leaving it up to interpretation. I only said that because I had to put something in the opening statement when I made the DRN. Although, yes, it was partially my fault for asking that in the first place, there is a lot of speculation on "mediation" and how that is compared to resolving a case, since you can resolve a case with only the case filer participating. Given how frequently the term "mediating" is used in these discussions, I still think the difference needs to be laid since my discussion got closed as a direct result of that misunderstanding. Nonetheless, you are correct that I should not have said that in the first place and that I did not lay my intentions how I should've. Senomo Drines (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section on the FAQ that already addresses this issue on Q13.

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

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

It is not clear whether or not the questioner is the case filer or the one invited to the DRN. The difference is notable because the DRN header explicitly states that the case filer must participate in the discussion, but ambiguously does not say the same about the invitee. What is unanimously agreed upon is that the case filer must participate, but there seems to be confusion on whether or not the same should apply to other disputed participants. Senomo Drines (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FAQ #1 is quite clear: You do not have to participate MrOllie (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...And if they don't participate, then what happens next? The case gets closed? So if you get invited to any DRN and are the only other disputant, you can just shut the case down by not participating? Senomo Drines (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. DRN has no authority to force binding outcomes. If there is no one to discuss with to reach a consensus there is no reason to proceed. MrOllie (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a dangerous precedent. The invitee could simply decline in the DRN and continue the dispute for as long as they want in the talk page, and the DRN will do nothing about it because the invitee refuses to participate. Senomo Drines (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what you want DRN to do in these cases? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view, if the invitee is willingly dropping the case, that is by default forfeiting their side of the story. If they don't want that, then they need to join in or else the DRN will oversee the situation without their point of view. Senomo Drines (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the DRN will oversee the situation without their point of view I'm still confused. What do you want DRN to do exactly? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the person who is invited to the DRN chooses not to participate, they are essentially agreeing to let the discussion continue without them. You can't argue that kind of situation is unfair because they willingly consented to let that happen. However, I know the DRN wants the case to be understood from both sides regardless, but they can do that without the invitee by looking at where the dispute took place and then, from their own judgment, look thoroughly at the conversation there to assert their verdict. That is exactly what they did when I "unlawfully" undid the close; they went to the dispute hotspot themselves via the talk page. Senomo Drines (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a court, there is no verdict. DRN volunteers are not judges. Even if the case had stayed open it could not have given you the outcome you seem to want. MrOllie (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely fine. DRN is supposed to be impartial, and the case filer may end up being the one who gets chewed out instead. I used the word "verdict" semantically, Wikipedia is obviously not a jurisdictional court or anything like that. Senomo Drines (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no further objections, I'll add a line in the FAQ acknowledging the fact that invitees not engaging in a discussion forfeit their side of the story. Senomo Drines (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics'

It only took me a few minutes to ascertain that the recently-opened request for dispute resolution concerns what is a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy. I suggest that it be summarily closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock access and edit permission

Request to cancel access ban...

Allow editing. Armin fozuni (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to fawiki. It has nothing to do with enwiki. DMacks (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]