The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was

Steven Zhang, the main supporter of DRN, has indicated that he is receptive of the concerns and that he will work to see that reforms happen. I believe him.

Therefore, I am going to withdraw this nomination at this time, in the hopes that he is able to work with the volunteer team and the community and address these issues to prevent them from happening again. I withdraw this nomination as a measure of good faith, in the hopes that the issues are resolved and that we do not need to return here. --Rschen7754 07:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is a place where editors can come to receive assistance resolving their content disputes. Anyone can volunteer to assist other people mediate a conflict. In this way, content disputes can be resolved quickly and informally, without a need for more stressful processes.

The concept of the board is well-intentioned, but it has largely failed.

Why it has failed?

• Forcing content and conduct to be divorced entirely - Any mention of any other user, even in a case where conduct is in an important element, is immediately censored, a gross violation of WP:TPG since volunteers are oversensitive as to what is inappropriate. Only personal attacks and genuine incivility should be removed, as per English Wikipedia norms; yet any mention of a particular editor is hastily removed. [1] I agree that conduct issues are not suitable for DRN as proposed, but the wholesale editing of comments regarding conduct is highly inappropriate.
• No guidelines for recusal - There is nothing mandating that volunteers who have had previous negative interactions with participants in a case refrain from clerking a case, even when requested to do so by a participant, and volunteers refuse to recuse on a regular basis. [2][3] This violates the Wikipedia principle found in WP:INVOLVED and that is observed by admins and arbitrators.
• Volunteers are more interested in the process rather than resolving disputes: Volunteers are clerking comments solely for the sake of clerking, with some vague reference to the Dispute Resolution rules:[4][5] Moreover, they are warning editors that they will be asked to "leave" discussions unilaterally, without having the authority to do so, and without a chance of appeal:[6][7] This is despite "Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia." Volunteers claim that they have the authority to ask people to leave the discussion and refactor comments, but the community has never given them that authority.
• Lack of volunteer accountability - Volunteers who make a mess of the process are not held accountable to Wikipedia behavioral standards, or the standards of the dispute resolution process, and attack anyone who dares question their methods. [8] It is not possible to remove a volunteer who makes a mockery of the process.

This was not just a one-off incident, but a pattern, as someone has pointed out on my talk page regarding an incident regarding men's rights in October 2012: [9] In short, what DRN has become is against all the principles that the English Wikipedia stands for.

Therefore, if the dispute resolution noticeboard cannot be reformed, it should be shut down, as it serves to inflame disputes rather than resolve them. A discussion at WT:DRN is just going to get stonewalled like the ones I started last night. I suggest that content disputes be more aggressively sent to a RFC, or to the now mostly-inactive Mediation Committee, as a replacement for this process, should consensus be to shut DRN down. If it is not shut down, there needs to be more accountability, but I am uncertain that this will happen. --Rschen7754 00:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. You have to remember that it's informal mediation, meant to be a step before MedCom (if it gets there). This is something voluntarily entered into by all parties, kind of like a 3O, or a RfC, etc. It's not something that should be deleted just because it's broken, why don't we fix it? gwickwire^talk_editing 05:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, we should. But if there is no impetus to fix it, then we should get rid of it as it is damaging the project. --Rschen7754 05:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This editor only attempted to get me to recuse myself based on false allegations of everything from a non existing conflict with them to a supposed conflict of interest, which the OP has seriously mistaken, because they were being held to the exact same standard we have held to others. This is not new. They chose to attack others against the rules of the board, using accusations of nationalistic views and other supposed behavior in their opening comments that are regularly collapsed or removed. This nomination was made in anger over a dispute that was predominantly a conduct dispute and they are simply taking out their anger on the board because they didn't like the result that other volunteers agreed with. A dispute this old (the OP states is years in the making) has Arbcom written all over it.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is completely false. In fact, I recommended that the filing be declined, and the filing was declined. --Rschen7754 06:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely accurate. You are simply angry because your comments, that were off topic, were collapsed and began edit warring on the DR/N.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have edit warred!? Please provide diffs. --Rschen7754 06:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, both of you, stop this. It's not serving anyone any benefit. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 06:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I get that DRN has problems. Every forum on Wikipedia does. While this isn't the first time that issues have occured at DRN, it has been open for over 18 months and has 67 archives - I feel that DRN has a purpose that it serves well. The guidelines for DRN have in the past served a vaulable purpose - keeping discussions focused on the issues at hand without degrading into an aggressive shouting match, and like all forums on Wikipedia, if discussions get out of hand other editors may step in to try and diffuse the situation. I am disappointed that some of the volunteers have overreached in this situation, and it does show me that further reforms and a back to basics approach is necessary, but DRN overall has been more of a good thing than a bad thing. Let me work on it with the DR community to make it even better. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 06:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone over reached in this situation. I believe the OP here became belligerent and attempted to force his will on the DR/N by edit warring a number of times to uncollapse his comments about others that were inappropriate. I am not the only one to do this, I did not write that portion of the guideline. it has been there since I began. But I do warn editors that they may be asked to leave the discussion. I have only ever had to ask one editor to do so many months back when they became very uncivil.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is the case. But I read the discussion - to me it seems fire is being fought with fire, and it has only made the situation worse. The dispute wasn't described in the best way (it seemed to be geared towards the editor moreso than the dispute) but asking them to tone it down either on DRN or their talk page would have been the best way to do this. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 07:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, my comments were a bit more edgy than they needed to be, and I would have toned them down upon request. --Rschen7754 07:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep The first reason Rschen7754 gave for this alleged "failure" says it all: "Forcing content and conduct to be divorced entirely". The following words are in the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Guide for Participants

What this noticeboard is not:

It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.

(Emphasis in original).

This has been a guiding principle of DRN, and it has served us well. It is a the other side of the coin of forums such as arbcom where user conduct is discussed and content disputes are not allowed. For an example of how it works in action, please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 66#Adolf Hitler

Rschen7754 does not like this rule and believes that it does not apply to him, and he reverted a DRN volunteer in an attempt to force us to accept his comments about user conduct. I invited him to discuss this on the DRN talk page (it could very well be that we should change the policy, and he is more than welcome to advocate that and seek consensus to allow comments about user conduct) but instead, in what I consider to be Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, he nominated DRN for deletion. This nomination for deletion should be rejected with extreme prejudice. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.