Wikipedia:Types of DRN Filings

Types of Disputes

Disputes Not Handled Here

Because the name of this noticeboard is Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, some disputes are brought here for which this is not the right forum for resolution. Here is a list of types of disputes that have been brought to DRN at least once, and my thoughts on what advice should be given about resolving them. Two general principles are that we do not deal with a dispute of a type for which there is a specific forum, and we do not deal with a dispute that is also pending anywhere else.

1. Inadequately discussed issues. I think that, at a minimum, the filing editor and another editor should each have made at least two posts, and at least 24 hours should have elapsed. Some volunteers would prefer that the discussion have covered 48 hours. If there are several editors and two (or three or four) points of view, each viewpoint should have been expressed more than once. Sometimes discussion resolves issues. These cases can either be closed without prejudice, telling the filing editor that they can come back if discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, or put on hold to see if moderated discussion is needed.
2. Disputes that have only been discussed on user talk pages. The editors should be told to discuss on the article talk page. The reason why they should be discussed at the article talk page is that other editors might offer opinions. Either their opinions might help resolve the dispute, or they may want to take part in the dispute. These cases should be closed without prejudice.
3. Cases where the other editors are not listed (and have not been notified). The filing editor should be told to list the other editors and notify them. Apparently some editors don't understand that DRN is for content disputes between two or more editors.
4. Cases where the other editors have been listed but have not been notified. These can be put on hold for the filing editor to notify the other editors, or can be closed without prejudice. It is really a matter of judgment by the volunteer which way to deal with them.
5. Cases where the other editor does not reply after being notified. There are at least two subtypes of these cases, where the other editor hasn't edited (because they edit sporadically), or where the other editor has edited. In other situation, the volunteer should suggest that the filing editor read the discussion failure essay and close the case.
6. Cases where the other editor has declined to take part in moderated discussion. DRN, like any form of dispute resolution except RFC, is voluntary. The usual reasons are either that the filing editor is a jerk and the other editor doesn't want to deal with them, or that the other editor is a jerk and doesn't want to deal with anyone. These cases are likely to wind up at WP:ANI. The volunteer should use judgment in how to word the closure of the case.
7. Disputes where there is a current or recently closed Request for Comments. If there is a current RFC about an issue, the RFC takes precedence over other methods of dispute resolution including DRN. Misconduct in an RFC should be reported at WP:ANI. If there is a recently closed RFC about an issue, the close of the RFC has established consensus. DRN should not be used to relitigate a recently closed RFC. Editing against the result of an RFC is disruptive editing and may be reported at WP:ANI. DRN should not be used to challenge the close of an RFC, or to rediscuss the issue.
8. One-against-many disputes. If one editor has one opinion and at least three or four editors disagree, it is unlikely that moderated discussion will work any better than discussion. The editors should be advised to read the one-against-many essay. Usually it is the editor who is in the minority who requests dispute resolution. They should be advised that they can file a Request for Comments, but that it is likely that the RFC will just confirm that the filing editor is in a small minority.
9. Disputes listing a (very) large number of editors, maybe eight or ten, maybe twelve or fifteen or eighteen. Sometimes these are one-against-many disputes, but often there are two or multiple viewpoints. Moderated discussion is not likely to be any more useful than discussion at establishing any sort of consensus. Usually an RFC is the best way to resolve these. It may be useful to offer to help the editors formulate a neutrally worded RFC.
10. Deletion disputes. DRN does not handle disputes about whether an article should be deleted, because there are two levels of forums for the purpose. If there is an Articles for Deletion discussion in progress, the filing party should be told to take part in the AFD. Complaints about conduct in an AFD can be directed to WP:ANI. If a deletion discussion has been closed and the filing party is unhappy with the result, the appellate forum is Deletion Review. If an editor merely wants to discuss whether an article should be deleted, they can nominate it at Articles for Deletion.
11. Disputes about Articles for Creation, drafts, and the review process. If a draft has been declined or rejected, discuss with the reviewer.
12. Disputes that are said to be about vandalism. The filing editor may really be complaining about vandalism, or they may be yelling vandalism. Real vandalism should be reported at the vandalism noticeboard, except that weird, complicated, or sneaky vandalism should be reported at WP:ANI. Yelling vandalism when there is a content dispute is a personal attack. If an editor says that another editor is vandalizing an article, they are probably trying to "win" a content dispute by Yelling vandalism.
13. Disputes that are said to involve or include sockpuppetry. Sockpuppetry should be reported at sockpuppet investigations. Unsubstantiated allegations of sockpuppetry are a personal attack.
14. Incivility or personal attacks, unless there is also a content dispute. Either ignore the incivility, or report it at WP:ANI.
15. Incomprehensible cases. These usually involve a competency problem by the filing editor. Sometimes the filing editor doesn't know enough English to be able to explain what the issue is. Sometimes the filing editor doesn't know how to think in any language.
16. Copyright disputes. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and the judgment of administrators who specialize in copyright is final. If you have a copyright issue, discuss it with the administrator.
17. Tagging disputes. These are mostly stupid. A tag says that something is wrong with the article, such as that it is non-neutral, or that its notability is disputed. A dispute about a neutrality tag should be resolved as a dispute about whether to change the wording of the article to make it neutral, which is an article content dispute. A dispute about notability is resolved by nominating the article for deletion and letting the community decide. There is almost always some way to resolve the underlying issue that the tag represents. DRN may or may not be the right forum for that resolution. (For neutrality, DRN probably is. For notability, AFD is.)

Disputes That Can Be Handled Here

Here are some types of cases that can be handled at DRN:

1. Disputes involving highly technical matters. The moderator is likely not to be familiar with the subject matter. It is the responsibility of the editors to explain the subject matter to the moderator, just as it is their responsibility to explain the subject matter to the readers.
2. Disputes where there has been edit-warring. Moderated dispute resolution is sometimes the best alternative to edit-warring. The moderator will generally instruct the editors not to edit the article anyway. Discussion can continue even if an admin has locked the article.
3. Disputes with both content and conduct issues. The moderator will insist that the editors discuss article content only. If they want to discuss content, they can go to WP:ANI, but any DRN thread will be closed.

Category:Wikipedia essays explaining processes Category:Uncategorized essays