Dear all, I note this RfC still appears to be open (after three months) so will post here. I have a series of structured questions that would be good to get agree/disagree answers to see if there is anything that needs fixing or streamlining. If the consensus is to remain as is, then please note this below.

My impression is that if one looks at Wikipedia:DR#Seeking_preliminary_advice_and_feedback_to_resolve_the_dispute and Wikipedia:DR#Resolving_content_disputes and Wikipedia:DR#Resolving_user_conduct_disputes is that there are a lot of venues for helpful editors and admins to cover. I do wonder whether fewer boards would mean more eyes on each. Hence I wonder if it is worth streamlining or seeing if we need to shift emphasis or scope of any. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thus first question is, do we have too many noticeboards?

1. I'd agree, in the interest of giving a straight answer. We should streamline the process as much as possible. It's less about quantity, though, and more about having a clear process. I'm not sure what that process might look like. Right now, it's just a pile of options, and some disputes literally go in circles instead of moving up the ladder to someone who can deal with them. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Definitely agree. There are so many DR forums nowadays, some with vague instructions, that it makes it vague and confusing for both the editos involved and those trying to resolve the issue. I feel the old system of RFC -> MedCab -> MedCom, with a few notice boards in between, would be good, but nowadays there's just too many. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 12:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably a better question is: would reducing the number of noticeboards be useful/necessary? Would it attract more eyes? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, that is an inverse asking of this one, and begs the question below - if we reduce, what gets removed or merged? Q2 below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• For me, the greater issue is a lack of standards as to how to proceed through DR in an orderly fashion. The entire DR page and process gives most users little help with deciding how to resolve their problems, and people just end up at WP:ANI because they can't figure out how to get help with their problems. If there was a more orderly process, perhaps an organized "leveled" system, where all disputes are required to go through certain steps, it may reduce the noise level at ANI, and help people feel like there's a reasonable process to solving their problems. This isn't a fully-fleshed-out idea, but if there was some process flow to the system, something like:

  Comment: First, users get other, uninvolved users to give a general opinion of what's what, and how to fix it.

  Mediation: A formal mediation where parties to a dispute lay out their cases, and a mediator helps find a solution

  Administration: When mediation breaks down, admin tools are used to reduce disruption from one or all parties as needed.

  Arbitration: For cases where nothing else has worked...

• This is just some general riffing; I have no idea how this should be implemented, just a general thought that the DR process does need some work, and what it needs is a better flow to prevent everything from just being dumped at WP:ANI, which is where it seems to collect nowadays. --Jayron32 05:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, I'm not sure how that significantly differs from the current system (we already have all of that). The main reason you end up with lots at ANI is because users aren't satisfied with discussion/comment/mediation; involved parties become so frustrated that they don't want to discuss and prefer disposing of their content opponents via admins' tools. As to how to encourage people to want to go through DR, well...that's the million dollar question. Even in real life, many people don't like the idea of mediation; they think having their day in court will solve their problems. Some finally start thinking about settlement either when they are told how much it will cost, or after they have had a taste of it for themselves; others prefer the gamble. I suppose it's one of the advantages/disadvantages of trying to mirror a real life dispute resolution system onto a website which mostly consists of volunteers. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very few people actually use WP:DR. The pattern usually goes like this:
    • 1) Someone did something I don't like
    • 2) Go straight to WP:ANI
    • 3) Get told to try other methods of dispute resolution
    • 4) Refuse to do so on the grounds that "they never work anyways"
    • 5) Have the conversation that should have happened elsewhere at ANI, clogging it up and making it an unworkable place to get admin business done.
    • What needs to happen, maybe, is that we need to see that each step has been attempted in good faith before jumping to the next step; i.e. mediation must occur before disputants will be blocked or articles protected (barring edit warring and vandalism), community bans cannot be discussed until evidence exist of earlier steps in the process, etc. Literally, we autoclose any thread that doesn't clearly indicate that prior methods of resolution were attempted. Or maybe not. Again, I am not wedded to this idea, just sort of throwing it all against the wall to see what sticks... --Jayron32 05:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The question is how to autoclose the thread, and how to account for cases which are not so clear cut. We should probably have a system similar to SPI; an assistant (who is like a SPI clerk) must endorse it before it can be considered. With the exception of special and/or extreme cases, the assistant would only endorse a report if discussion with the user has been adequate/tried and at least one attempt at comment/mediation was made. Reviews of actions (like block reviews) would also obviously be permitted/sufficient, and there'd be a few other similar things which are allowed. If the assistant endorses a report, then notifications can be sent. Like you, I'm not particularly wedded to this idea, but you are right; all we can do is brainstorm. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmmm, might work for the 'heavier' areas like AN/I but seems like overkill for something like wikiquette or 3O. sorry, I see we're talking about AN/I already..might make it more workable, a more aggressive triage....?Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Jayron32 after some discussion, this might be the sort of idea to go down at Q3 below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Noting that it's an Arbitrator who asked this question, it occurs to me that ArbCom's rules actually encourage the existence of multiple such boards. ArbCom has a big sign at the door that says: try something else first, because we will send you away if you haven't tried other steps in DR first. One way to decrease steps in the DR process would be to require fewer steps. Alternatively, given that there are good reasons to try "lightweight" processes before resorting to the big guns, perhaps that's a reason not to be so concerned about too many noticeboards. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, MedCom has the same problem. I will never file another mediation request ever again. 3+ months of edit warring (now 6+) is apparently not enough of a prior dispute for them to bother with. And it's impossible to draft a RfC when one of the parties doesn't concisely state their beef, but drowns the page with WP:TLDR posts. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The more complicated the structure, the harder it will be to use it, and consequently people who need help will either go anywhere whatsoever including the individual talk p. of anyone who seems sympathetic, or give up altogether. To expect people to follow a complicated and discoordinated series of steps that nobody understands but the specialists DGG ( talk ) 15:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Its hard enough at times to know where to take a dispute. But a the same time its also somewhat vague. I think that on balance fewer boards will make for less comlextiy but more ambiguity.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any noticeboards whose scope is similar enough or reduplicated to warrant consideration of a merge? If so, list candidates below. Note that some boards may be split between more than one other board or merged or whatever.

• Place proposals here with support/oppose options. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard seems a candidate for merger. It looks rather underused, and users could be directed to either WP:FEED or some other Editor Assistance type of venue (eg WP:NCHP), plus WT:N. Rd232 ^talk 04:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about Wikipedia:Content noticeboard? Maybe it should be marked as historical? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In its defence, the Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard is certainly well-defined (and notabilty is a fairly commonly discussed headache issue, but there does seem to be some overlap with several other pages. I guess wait for a few comments and consider a proposal for merging (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reorg idea by Sven Manguard

Let's do a massive reorg. with something like what follows.

Section 1: Content Questions

A. General Content Noticeboard - for miscellaneous stuff that dosen't fit at

1. Copyright Central - the board where all things copyright are concerned (yes, I have it as CC on purpose.)

2. Notability Board

3. Manual of Style Board

4. Files Board - Ask me about this if you want. Every file worker I've spoken to says it's a good idea.

5. Other boards of specialized, content focused nature, that I am forgetting.

Section 2: Disputes

A. Dispute Resolution (informal) - Currently what AN/I, VP, other areas end up doing. A non-mediated place where all sides of an issue can post and other neutrals can come in and comment. If it fails, go to:

B. Dispute Resolution (formal) - A neutral mediator hears both sides, tries to solve the situation, and if nessacary, recommends a solution. We can decide if this is binding or not later. If that fails, go to:

C. AN/I, where topics that have tried A and B go for a final, binding solution. If it hasn't gone to A, it's automatically kicked there. If it has gone to a but not to B, a decision can be made on a case by case basis if that's going to help, based on how the discussion at A transpired.

This seems straightforward. A three step heiratchy for all dispute resolution, and a system of specialized noticeboards for questions. Note that VP would remain unchaneged, and other areas may or may not become redundant with this, (in which case a merge is in order.)

Basic organizational theory states that if I have a set number of units of time I am willing to spend on dispute resolution or noticeboards, the number I spend at one board increases as the number of boards I watch decreases. If all dispute resolution is in thee places, and the level of sevarity dictates the board, we'll get more involvement and more eyes watching. If noticeboards aren't redundant, their scope is clear, and they're not sites for dispute resolution, they will function cleaner. Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 08:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O-kay, right now then, regarding section 2, which would be merged? Wikipedia:Third opinion + Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts clearly. Any others? leave Wikipedia:Editor assistance as is? Which current boards would that be into content noticeboard then? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno about the premise here. Right now, if a person has one hour a week to help with dispute resolution, then that editor is likely to keep up with one or two low-traffic boards. Maybe he'll pick a subject-specific RFC page, maybe ELN, but something like that. If there were fewer boards, then the one or two boards this person watched would represent a greater fraction of the noticeboards, and in theory, each resulting noticeboard would have more watchers.

Except that in practice, merging boards means that the proportion of stuff that interests you would go down (as all the stuff from the previously separate board appears here), the volume would go up (ditto, with the additional effect that folks with mobile connections or dialup from developing countries sometimes can't edit huge pages), the quality of the responses would go down (fewer respondents actually understand the details of the subject area, whether that "subject" is defined as the subject of an article or the meaning of a particular sentence in a policy)—and the time-limited editor would probably stop watching it altogether, in exactly the same way that I avoid watching ANI.

I'm also concerned about the structure of the disputes, as it fails to account for the variety of dispute types. ANI's a lousy place to get a "binding" decision on how to present a given fact in an article. (What's that got to do with admin buttons, anyway?) It's a fine place to go to get a spammer or vandal blocked. If you've found a spammer, you shouldn't have to waste time on a "neutral mediator" or posting "all sides of the issue" about whether spamming is desirable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, Sven's idea of sending all disputes not resolved by earlier stages is in conflict with the whole existing WP culture that admin don't deal with content. We still need a proper procedure for content disputes, i.e., for a start, one that actually resolves them regularly, not just sometimes. Peter jackson (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To guarantee that we resolve all content disputes, rather than merely the disputes where one or more parties is willing to make a concession or change their mind (or walk away), we need a big stick. Mediation and third opinions and fluffy bunnies are very nice, but some disputes involve people who have taken opposing stances and cannot (or will not) move from their opposition; there is no consensual way to resolve those disputes. Some time ago I gave a 3O and one of the parties responded with "That's not a third opinion, it's a second one, because it's the same as the other biased editors..." - disputes like that can only be resolved with authority and enforcement (Or: A duel in the Circle of Death), which is not necessarily something that wikipedia does well. bobrayner (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Peter jackson (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the consensus model, the lack of clear standards, the normal human variations in admins make a enforcement approach problematic. An attempt to move in this direction would harm WP more than help it ("cure" would be worse than the disease). But disputes can be resolved through persistence, patience and numbers. Gerardw (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes. Peter jackson (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify that, if the "persistence, patience and numbers" are there, then they can resolve the dispute, but often they aren't. Peter jackson (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The frist step in re-organization is to get rid of the parts that do not work. The notability NB is useless--the practical place for discussing notability is AfD,and everything else in that connections in unnecessary. Most of what I do here involves discussing notability , and I work perfectly well without bothering with that notice board at all.` And I'm not sure about the content noticeboard either. The place for this is in the individual talk pages, with RfCs for wider attention. DGG ( talk ) 16:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree.Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any boards that are problematic in how they function that need some modification to scope, process, policing or something else?

1. Of course I am going to bring up Wikiquite Alerts. It's a brawling pit, and more than one person has gone there to share a valid concern, got beaten on themselves, and left. In fact, on more than one occasion people have gone there about a problem, gotten chased away, and then weeks later other people go there with the same problem from the same user. I needs to get merged into mediation, because if a neutral party isn't watching like a hawk, WQA becomes a bloodbath. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. I agree that in my looks at it, the Wikiquette Alerts board is darn near useless. I think a better purpose might be for disputes that are between two editors in general. That way it would be less about arguing about who has worse manners -- the accused or the accuser -- and more about helping the two of them find a resolution. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. I have also seen the Wikiquite Alerts abused as well, but the other way around. Blantan attmoets to use it to brow beat opponents. I don't know if it need rmeoving or if it just needs to be tightned up. I also wonder if its disliked becasue it doesn not do what soiome oen wants rathr then any actual faults.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Content noticeboards like NPOV/N, RS/N and NOR/N perhaps require some sort of oversight. Many questions brought there are simply not answered. I've got one thread running on one of the them that I've relisted like four times and the only responses were by editors I personally requested comment from. Someone suggested {{Resolved}} tags as a solution... I guess merging some of them might create a wider audience, but they're each pretty full. Nightw 21:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If "agree" note the venue and the problem (and hopefully possible solution). Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I agree with you Sven, but others felt it had a role.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a perception that nothing good comes out of WQA. I believe the reasons for this include skewed sample and lack of appreciation for intangible benefits.

Consider two successive recent WQAs Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Xeworlebi Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Kintetsubuffalo, and Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Xeworlebi. The former received two quick replies. The poster received calm, respectful advice and both parties appear to have moved on. The latter was a dramafest which bled over into ANI. So these two examples show 50% "success" rate but because the latter was more expansive in time, number of posts, and drama, it leaves a much bigger impression.

Additionally, I think perhaps ANI watches tend to notice the WQAs that end up at ANI more than those that don't, also tended towards a skewed view.

One of the objections raised at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts_(3rd_nomination) was WQA is largely a matter of "waah, someone did X," and even when that person has done X... there's absolutely nothing to convince them not to do it again. This reflects a common attitude among WP editors and I think more so among WP admins. My response is, so what's wrong with someone did X? Sometimes the waaher justs needs support, just needs to know that not everyone on WP acts like a WP:DICK. Alternatively, waaher may just need an editor to explain that someone was referring to their edit and not the waaher personally. And sometimes the waaher has been abused repeatedly by someone and has been too demure/polite to raise a fuss.

The lack of diversity among wikipedia editors has been noted[[1]]. I believe part of this is the frequently gruff manner of many editors and admins, and WQA has the potential to address this.

The seeming chaos at WQA reflects a lack of clarity / clear consensus as to what constitutes civil behavior. See Wikipedia:Incivility_blocks. This does not particularly bother me -- one of WPs strengths is an aversion to rigid definitions and the wiki-lawyering that follows. I just think this needs to be considered when evaluating the usefulness of WQA.

WQA should be designed to support a newbie editor running into civility conflict with someone. That means simple and encouraging. One of the problems that affects WQA is that, when longtime editors see the same annoying pattern occur over and over, the tendency is to stick another bullet at the top of the page. There are too many right now, but can't easily say which one should be removed. And the emphasis is wrong, anyway. (I'll work on it and propose on WQA talk page).

Of course, WQA should also support long time editors, too.

This WQA should not have been filed is usually the wrong thing to say, unless that particular editor has a history of bogus filings. The problem is, as also noted at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts_(3rd_nomination), is the perception that the other party is required to or should reply to the WQA. Often, it's better if they don't and other editors address the issue. But if a fairly new editor is feeling slighted, they should be encouraged to post WQAs, and responding editors can then gently redirect them the right way. People should just read the directions at WP:DR, you might say. Again, that viewpoint is based on a certain personality type.

• as suggested at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts_(3rd_nomination), we probably do need a blurb to post on folks talk page when they're been brought up on WQA.

Currently, the biggest concern with WQA is lack of neutral editors. It's not an easy job to do well. I started a few years ago when I still wasted my time editing pop culture articles and there was a banner on top of my watchlist asking for help. In time, I found it's a place I'm comfortable working for about two months a year. (After that, start to get burnt out, ya know?)

And it works best when non-admins are the ones responding. Yes, I know, admins are just editors with a few extra privileges. Well, that's bullshit. There's a caste system at WP ... IP editors get treated like shit and adminship is considered by a small positive fraction of admins as being all that. (Apologies to the many very cool admins out there. I know who you are and greatly appreciate your efforts. But many of your brethren are douchebags). When an admin starts weighing in, When an editor with admin privileges starts responding in "admin" mode, two bad things happen:

• folks start thinking WQA is a place to get someone blocked. Then the distinction between WQA and ANI gets blurred. Then we start talking about deleting WQA...
• if admins start weighing in, I, at least, am generally out of there.

If something requires the admin hammer someone will refer it to ANI. (I understand in may be the case WQA is undermanned sufficiently that admins have to help carry the slack. But ideally that wouldn't be the case. If you have to post on WQA, at least try not to act like an admin).

On the other hand, when someone disses someone on ANI, don't say file a WQA. That nevers works. We succeed at WQA (when we do) by de-escalation. Once trash talking has started at ANI, it's already beyond WQA scope. Gerardw (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recently there's been a spate of drama over closing WQAs. In the end, MiszBot always gets the WP:LASTWORD. While marking a WQA makes things more convenient for newly arriving reviewers, there shouldn't be a rush to close a WQA ... if you think there's nothing more to say, don't say anything more. Try to force a close just generates unnecessary drama. Gerardw (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally agree with you here Gerardw. Had no idea admins weren't welcome though. Sorry. Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was aiming for emphatic without being offensive ... seems like I failed. Sorry. Gerardw (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't really offended. More surprised. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came here from the recent MfD, and I think Gerardw has done an excellent job of laying out the issues. One thing that occurred to me after reading this is that an awful lot of users do come to WQA looking to get someone blocked. Would it make sense to make very clear at the top of the WQA page that it's the wrong place to ask for that, or even to say explicitly that blocks are never given from WQA? A second thing that occurs to me, more an observation than a constructive suggestion, is that WQA comes across as a place that serves to meet the requirement of higher steps in the DR process for having made previous attempts at DR that failed. To the degree that WQA appears to almost always fail, it may tend to attract users who actually want it to fail, so they can check that box on the road to somewhere else. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen plenty of threads transferred to ANI though when it is plainly beyond WQA. That seems to work quite well. There are also plenty of threads at ANI that could do with being transferred down to WQA. WQA is for opinions from experienced editors in the hope of setting people on the right track. It also gives people being pushed around by more aggressive and/or knowledgable editors a bit of moral support. It may often "fail" in the sense that many agrressive and abusive users will not change their ways - but it helps their victims to know they are not just imagining things and they are not alone. Perhaps we should be a bit quicker to move threads to ANI.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, being told (in effect) that we feel sympathy for you but we aren't going to do anything about it can sound to a victim like they are being blown off. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or it may give the victim the courage to go somewhere more ... well ... chunky. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, depending on severity and who's paying attention to the alerts. If it's a powerful administrator who's abusing you you are less likely to get sympathy, in my experience. :-( CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at first sentence of this thread it links to a discussion whose main point is "Carcharoth made a suggestion on ANI the other day: administrators should be more willing to sanction people for NPOV violations." This has been a long time campaign of some editors.

They have now succeeded in the case of Noleander who is now forbidden to write on Jews and Judaism related issues not because of behavioral issues but because of his/her pattern of editing. (See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander and notice on editor's talk page. I was only familiar with Noleander's editing on two articles on Jews and media, the first which seemed a bit questionable, but the second which was largely supported by those who evidently liked the numerous examples of bashing those who spoke on the topic. Looking at other articles, it's obvious Noleander did have an obsession with documenting conspiracy theories in such a way as to promote them, so I can see the problem.

I can think of another case where I wholeheartedly supported topic banning an editor pushing some nutty economic theories. And there have been problems with obvious COI editing for various organizations/personalities. I don't know how many other obvious cases like that there have been.

But the issue always is the slippery slope from topic banning obvious extreme bias (especially when joined with bad behavior) to having ideological partisans going after people who edit mostly in one or two subject areas, perhaps with a minority viewpoint or a view unpopular among better organized Wikipedia editors who will claim POV issues even when the person adds mostly good information and mostly is on their best behavior on talk pages, etc. This is of course a special problem in the Israel-Palestine issue and partisans of that issue have been in the forefront of promoting such topic banning. But it could become an issue in many areas of controversial editing. I know I have decided to unwatch a few controversial articles just so I don't get myself drawn into some of further no-win controversies against well-organized partisans and risk unfair sanctioning. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just "minority viewpoints" that have this problem. When we get a handful of POV pushers entrenched on a page, it's sometimes the person with the mainstream view that gets attacked for having a COI. I ran into an editor a while ago who objected to using peer-reviewed medical journal articles as sources in an article about a surgical procedure because (I kid you not) the authors of the articles all named at least one surgeon. It's amazing how often COIN gets a complaint along the lines of "User X shouldn't be allowed to edit articles about ___, because he's a bona fide real-world expert in the subject, and I've decided that the COI guideline doesn't mean what it directly says about experts being permitted to edit articles within their expertise" (especially in articles related to psychiatry: healthcare professionals frequently feel attacked, but nobody ever says "User X shouldn't be allowed to edit the article about Involuntary commitment, because he's been locked up for his own safety six times, and is actually 'citing' his personal experiences as a reliable source." WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. There's a recent ANI thread ("Evolutionary psychology") about some prof having the nuts to propose an overview table from his own work, which apparently was featured on the web site of the foremost professional organization in that field. On the other hand, things start to get objectionable COI-wise in my book when people who have recorded real-life disagreements (academic or otherwise) start "improving" each others' Wikipedia biographies with negative stuff. This isn't very different from what Noleander was doing, except N was doing it to a large group of people (Jews, Mormons, etc.) Tijfo098 (talk) 05:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, with last sentence of Tijfo098's entry we get back to the original topic of POV editing vs. the post straying into the topic of COI editing. I'd ask the original poster to clarify more what they meant, but the problem is someone then archived the original discussion. As I just said on talk page, I don't think we are supposed to be archiving all of the discussions under this dispute resolution RfC. Either close this one and start a new RFC or leave the original material. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not trust myself or any other admin to give sanctions for NPOV on our own authority, without some degree of community agreement. My experience is that if you understand a subject well enough to judge npov, you will inevitable support one side or other. If you started out with no involvement or knowledge at all, by the time you are ready to take action you will surely have developed a pov.. DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DGG is unfortunately right. The most dispassionate voices on a topic might be poorly equipped to analyze it. In fact many dispassionate voices might fall into a bad pattern of supporting the majority view which isn't always the most intelligent and empirically supported view. But then the people with the expertise may develop passions for one perspective. It's a hard thing to figure out... so it really only makes sense to have some kind of community agreement here. Warnings and sanctions should be less about viewpoints and more about tactics. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you two are right then the Wikipedia model is unworkable. There can be no solution to these problems. The same would presumably apply to the Citizendium model, as, by your arguments, the experts in charge there would also suffer from POV. That would leave the Wikinfo model as the only one I know of that could actually work: POV-forking with hatlinking. Peter jackson (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not following your reasoning here. Ten years of existence would indicate otherwise. Gerardw (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of the current page & thread, "workable" means "capable of being developed to the point where it regularly achieves NPOV in political/religious articles". Mere existence is a quite different achievement. Peter jackson (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not being very clear. Let me try again.

1. NPOV is supposed to be a fundamental principle of WP. Yet it has no generally effective procedure for achieving it, and often fails to do so. It seems to have little interest in developing such a procedure (how many people take part in these discussions?) & seems unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future. DGG & SW above go further, it seems to me, arguibng it's actually impossible.
2. Citizendium might have the sam eproblems with NPOV, but at least it's capable in principle of achieving its aim of representing expert opinion. All it has to do is attract a sufficiently large & representative selection of experts to work there as Editors (not the same as editors here, but meaning experts given authority there.
3. Wikinfo quite openly makes no attempt to achieve NPOV. Instead it works on the principle of having different POVs covered in their own articles, with See also at the top. Once again, this is achievable if it gets the people in to do it.

Hope that's clear enough. Peter jackson (talk) 09:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

/Overview - 20:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The scope of our dispute resolution structure is too broad. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution consists of two types of dispute-resolution: 1) methods and forums for the resolution of content disputes, such as mediation and third-opinion; and 2) methods and forums for settling grievances between one editor and another, such as user-conduct RFCs and arbitration. I recently re-wrote WP:DR so that it segregated the two types of dispute resolution, but this tendency to amalgamate everything into an umbrella process of "dispute resolution" is systemic and something we might want to think about later. AGK [•] 22:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really interesting point. However, apart from the DR mechanisms/rules, the disputes themselves tend to blur the boundary. If two people initially disagree over content, then one will start following the other round to revert other changes or they'll start sniping at each other; or if two people initially had a personal conflict they'd soon find a way to manifest this in article-space. bobrayner (talk) 09:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, disputes are of sufficient complexity that there are often problems in both departments. So will addressing the content issues resolve the conduct concerns or will addressing the conduct resolve the content issues? Or do they both need to be addressed or should the disputes just be dropped? Although some people often suggest there is a straightforward answer to these questions which can apply to pretty much all cases, in reality, it depends on the dispute and the users involved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that many disputes start out as content and gain a conduct facet, so there is an element in both. The main aim, therefore, is to have places customised to help, specific enough so one can find a place with editors with some degree of expertise, yet not so many ports of call to bewilder the neophyte. I think one reason my MfD of WQA failed was the sense that people would lose a venue, and maybe we should focus more on merging and highlight target destinations. I am mindful of DGGs post above about the Notability Noticeboard - so do we feel this is the correct venue to discuss and propose venue mergers? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Many of the responses on WQA are of the variety I was justified in being incivil 'cause X did blah-blah-blah, or content discussion becomes heated into personal conflict. Gerardw (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a chicken-and-egg problem. Yes, disputes about content certainly escalate into personal disputes; but on the other hand, the way that individuals deal with disagreement and with other personalities makes all the difference between a polite exchange and a drama-fest in which other articles/editors become involved. (Pick a random thread on AN/I or medcab, and try to find whichever editor is at the heart of the dispute. Ask yourself "If they were editing on a completely different article, would they still be featured at AN/I or medcab sooner or later?") bobrayner (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok for starters, looking at Wikipedia:Third opinion, this is a nice idea but rather nebulous, surely a merger - identifying interpersonal disputes to either WQA or mediation, and content disputes for an RfC on the appropriate article (or wiki) talk page (which is in essence a third, fourth etc. opinion anyway)? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think an article RfC accomplishes the same effect (and possibly more). 3O has been a content dispute mechanism, even though the name would suggest it addresses conduct too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, practicalities, would this be better to propose this as a merge with the targets laid out (probably better than MfD as less confrontational) or village pump proposal? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a merge would be the best bet (yes don't do MfD); of course, appropriate postings to village pump, AN and the other usual spots might help increase input on the merge proposal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard - I suspect the best targets are specific wikiprojects (for article notability) or reliable sources noticeboard, which is what notability is intimately linked with (RS's)....? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, but I think before that, the content noticeboard is probably not helping. I don't want to overwhelm a single board with too many functions that it goes haywire or becomes totally pointless. A lot of content issues tend to revolve around sources (from notability to POV to plagiarism to verifiability) so the transition should probably be more gradual. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying we should look at folding the content noticeboard first into RS noticeboard and elewhere? I was thinking of that noticeboard as another one with a somewhat vague brief. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but looking at it again, none of the tags are on the noticeboard would indicate it is a step for DR; it's just a misc noticeboard. On the talk page of the content noticeboard, apparently the idea was to have it as "a place where content oriented editors can notify each other about things that concern them specifically". I think we can start off by removing it from the DR page and see if it has any effect. I'm going to boldly do that, and if it's objected to, at least we can find out a bit more info. In terms of other merging proposals, what do you think about fringe theories noticeboard with neutrality noticeboard (as both deal with NPOV)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(a) yes I think combining fringe and NPOV is a good idea as the same themes predominate. (b) if they aren't related to DR, then it begs the question of what are they for and are there other venues. Might be best to discuss there...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes better to discuss it there (at the moment, I get the impression they wanted to use it more like a WikiProject noticeboard). Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are all excellent points. I agree especially with the suggestion that the boundary is blurred in our DR venues, and that not many noticeboards or process can adequately address situations routed in problems with conduct and content. We could create a subpage that takes an overview of what our current processes are, and, moving on, what venues we could merge, delete, or split. AGK [•] 18:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking where exactly on this page to put my thoughts, I think I will post them here, while they might not entirely be best suited to here, this seemed like the most appropriate section. I definitely feel that there are way too many forums for dispute resolution nowadays, and the line is blurred between content and conduct disputes, much more so than in previous years. I do note that {{Dispute-resolution}} has become a lot more complex since I remember it. Even then, it is somewhat confusing for editors. Not everyone is as familiar with our processes for DR on Wikipedia, and I think in its current format it is quite confusing. The current dispute resolution (WP:DR) looks OK but could be improved to better explain the difference between the two major types of disputes. I also think some simplification might be in order.

I have a few different ideas. Perhaps, as a trial, create something similar to the article wizard, which would ask a user what sort of their dispute is, or ask for details as to the dispute, and perhaps point the user to the best avenue for resolving the dispute, could work, I'm really not sure. Something along those lines would be worth a shot, as back in 2008, at least to me, it seemed like it was clearer to users where they were to go to get assistance with resolving a dispute. I am not sure what has changed since then, but disputes across the wiki seem spread out and disjointed. I also think that possibly reducing some of the noticeboards could reduce this disjointedness and make it somewhat easier for users to find somewhere that can resolve their dispute, or point them in the right direction.

I also think that the idea of somewhat rejecting disputes on ANI that should really be discussed in another forum initially, is a reasonable idea, but the question is, how would it be done. Perhaps we could move the discussions to a subpage, or a different page entirely, or create a new noticeboard where all of these comments would be listed as opposed to ANI. Either way, I don't think that standard disputes being on ANI is a wise idea. ANI is not for content dispute resolution.

An alternative to my above idea, we could create a new noticeboard, say, Wikipedia:Dispute noticeboard (working title) where we could link all users to that have disputes, or if they had some sort of enquiry regarding where to take a dispute, and it could contain, just thinking out loud here, maybe some sort of structure similar to a SPI template, where the user needs to detail info about the dispute, users involved etc. I'm really not sure, but from that page we could point them in the right direction to the best avenue for them to take in regards to getting their dispute resolved. While it might be somewhat high maintenance, at least for the beginning, it would aid disputes going to the right places. Some disputes end up in wrong places.

The {{Dispute-resolution}} template should be cleaned up, and perhaps reorganised to sort by type of dispute, then by steps in the process. i.e. 1) User conduct - WQA (for now), RFC/U, RFAR and 2) Content disputes - Article talk, third opinion, MedCab, MedCom, with perhaps a separate section for more specific stuff, like RSN, but at the same time, some of these don't really belong in the classification of dispute resolution. Somewhat simplifying this template and the process for users might a) Reduce confusion on where to take disputes and b) Make it easier for users that volunteer in resolving disputes to keep track of current disputes (I know I've had trouble finding a list of current disputes, as they are all over the place).

It's somewhat clear to me that at present, a) There are too many forums for resolving disputes, many being disjointed or poorly functional b) There is confusion on the best processes to follow for resolving different types of disputes and that c) Some change is needed, or we at least need to test something and see how it goes. Let me know what you think. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 16:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also created a new IRC channel after discussion with a group contact #wikipedia-disputes. Perhaps this could function in a similar fashion to #wikipedia-en-help, we could use it to point confused users in the right direction on where best to take their dispute. Just throwing the idea out there, it seems to somewhat work with the #-help channel. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 14:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed an idea for a new noticeboard at village pump idea lab. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 19:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]