424:
86:
472:
781:. Initial response was generally sympathetic to concerns about WQA's ineffectiveness, but there was widespread backlash against routing all WQA disputes to AN/I. The number one complaint about WQA was that it just doesn't work, and further that it dilutes the DR pipeline and confuses editors with too many options. Several editors noted that too much blaming goes on there, sometimes even
466:
The main problems given for dispute resolution are its complexity, its inaccessibility, and that there are too many resolution processes and not enough volunteers. Respondents want stricter action taken against problematic editors, a simplified, more accessible process where closure can be bought to
770:
The results at DRN showed some encouraging stats - a reduction of 67% to first response times, 60% reduction in discussion times, 25% reduction in thread size, an average of 2.85 volunteers to a thread up from 1.5 and a success rate of over 64%. The amount of volunteers decreased by 20%; so from the
462:
When asked about their personal experiences with dispute resolution, positive aspects were that their dispute was resolved, the examples set by volunteers and the positive behavior of their fellow participants, while negative aspects included the time it takes to resolve a dispute, and the potential
69:
about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging,
785:
the drama. A common point was that without the admin teeth of AN/I, WQA does little to discourage our most uncivil editors. Opponents to the close noted that WQA at least gets the mess of conduct disputes off of article talk pages and is a lighterweight alternative to RFC/U. Also mentioned was
235:
The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What
61:
were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a
245:
Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any
452:
Opinions of dispute resolution were overall relatively negative - Arbitration was rated as the best dispute resolution forum by respondents – with one in three respondents rating it as good or better. In contrast, Wikiquette assistance was rated the worst – only 1 in 12 rated it as
663:
Of note is that the most active forum of those analyzed was the still relatively new
Dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN). Also interesting is that WQA was often the fastest place to yield a response; however, the survey found WQA rarely resulted in satisfactory resolution.
771:
results it shows that while the disputes were handled in a quicker timeframe by more volunteers per thread, it was from a small core group of volunteers. This emphasises the need for more volunteers - if the existing volunteers burnout, dispute resolution will suffer.
419:
is focused on understanding and improving DR on
Knowledge. One of the key purposes of this newsletter will be to present the best research and ideas we have about which options are working and what we as a community might do about improving the rest of them.
112:
As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.
93:. Here, participants fill out a request through a form, instead of through wikitext, making it easier for them to use, but also imposing word restrictions so volunteers can review the dispute in a timely manner.
445:
94% had requested assistance from a dispute resolution forum at some point, and 62% within the last year. Respondents were generally unhappy with their experiences in dispute resolution – only one in five were
321:: Let's start with brief overview of the DR ecosystem. Most disputes begin at an article talk page, and many are settled there. Policy specific questions are typically raised at a noticeboard, such as
475:
Graph measuring the effectiveness of dispute resolution, according to the survey. Purple and light-blue on the right-side edge of each bar indicate favourable community attitudes to each form of dispute
459:
Some respondents haven’t volunteered due to the unpleasantness of disputes, the prolonged nature of dispute resolution, or due to poor past experiences or a lack of knowledge in resolving disputes.
449:
Requests for
Comment is the most used dispute resolution forum, with 60% participating in the last year. Mediation Committee proceedings were used the least, only 10% were involved in proceedings.
302:
290:
My apology to anyone who felt receiving a message about this newsletter was spam or disruptive in any way. In future, we will not deliver messages in the same way. You can add your name to the
271:
797:
74:
232:
If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors).
295:
37:
239:
Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired.
435:
73:
An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is
805:
259:
105:. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A
456:
Dispute resolution volunteers do so because they felt the process was critical to
Knowledge functioning, liked helping people or as payback for previous assistance.
26:
778:
814:
207:
Forms will merely fill out any existing templates (such as Arbcom's) and create a markup-free form in line with specific noticeboard practices otherwise.
185:
102:
90:
17:
824:
157:
463:
for the processes to become unfair - many citing the source of this unfairness as administrators that became involved in the process.
101:
were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to the
Dispute Resolutions Noticeboard (DRN), editors used a
861:
124:
was closed in
September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Knowledge disputes.
411:: One of the first steps in improving our DR processes has been getting good data about DR. This has been spearheaded by
405:
of places where dispute resolution happens. Some of them are more extensive, better known, or more effective than others.
210:
Example form fields: What pages are involved? What users are involved? What is the issue? What resolution is desired?
121:
58:
132:
Given the success of the past efforts at
Dispute Resolution (DR) reform, the current RFC proposes we implement:
54:
416:
219:
117:
106:
786:
that the threat of AN/I delivered at WQA was sometimes enough. Consensus seemed to form around
423:
844:
483:: The following table summarizes activity in several DR forums for the month of May 2012.
149:
Designed to improve the quality of requests for DR and the efficiency of DR at that forum.
8:
401:
often needs to step in and levy a decision. An obvious observation here that there are
226:
This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute.
97:
Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to the
66:
242:
Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline.
412:
562:
398:
390:
334:
229:
It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent.
201:
197:
715:
25 - 1 to 12 ratio with 207 participants (average 1.47 per thread with 42 threads)
378:
721:
20 - 1 to 11 out of 177 total editors (average 2.85 per thread with 52 threads)
342:
322:
181:
169:
165:
146:
Structured based on the specific issues most commonly dealt with at each forum.
855:
801:
637:
612:
587:
537:
394:
386:
374:
370:
366:
362:
358:
346:
330:
326:
189:
177:
173:
161:
153:
98:
434:: In April 2012 Steven Zhang conducted a dispute resolution survey. Among
787:
512:
382:
354:
350:
338:
193:
109:
to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created.
299:
50:
442:
Over half of all respondents (and 80% of females) were older than 40.
143:
Similar to the one that was deployed, with great success, to the DRN.
85:
471:
845:
Dispute
Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May
817:
will be opened soon to discuss the future of dispute resolution.
36:
To add your name to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up
252:
how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers
790:
as a suitable replacement for WQA given our current options.
798:
Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard
381:. Small content disputes can start with the lightweight
116:
Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The
70:
which may be due to the disparate nature of the process.
65:
Due to the complexity of
Knowledge dispute resolution,
740:
2d 10 hr - 3 d 11 hr for disputes that were addressed
800:
is effective? Should we close or reroute it to the
67:
members of the community were surveyed in April 2012
236:
other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?".
393:. Some complex questions can be resolved with an
385:process; more substantial disputes wind up at the
53:was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the
853:
18:Knowledge:Dispute Resolution Improvement Project
373:(edit warring). User conduct issues go through
389:; and even more intractable issues arrive at
275:: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
250:3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on
139:tailored to the unique needs of that forum.
30:: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #2)
91:dispute resolution noticeboard request form
377:while more serious situations warrant an
470:
422:
84:
670:2012 compared the DRN to its May data:
14:
854:
152:Applicable at following noticeboards:
337:(alternative beliefs/pseudoscience),
137:submission gadget for every DR venue
99:dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)
825:opinion piece on dispute resolution
427:Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
216:universal dispute resolution wizard
23:
551:16.6 hours (21.4% never looked at)
258:Please share your thoughts at the
24:
873:
325:(biographies of living persons),
744:60% reduction in discussion time
369:(administrator's incidents), or
311:Welcome to the first edition of
838:
834:23:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
802:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard
706:67% reduction in response time
668:A follow-up analysis in August
538:Dispute resolution noticeboard
387:Dispute resolution noticeboard
13:
1:
438:, here were some highlights:
303:21:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
186:Ethnic and cultural conflicts
170:Biographies of Living Persons
862:Knowledge dispute resolution
294:list for future newsletters
220:Knowledge:Dispute resolution
7:
725:20% reduction in volunteers
10:
878:
815:second Request for comment
120:was closed in August, and
763:16.6% increase in success
749:
730:
711:
692:
823:: This week's Signpost
796:: Do you think that the
779:still receiving comments
712:# of active volunteers
391:the Mediation Committee
775:The WQA close proposal
731:Timeframe thread open
645:339 (212 from one RFC)
501:Average first response
477:
428:
375:Wikiquette noticeboard
174:Notability noticeboard
94:
688:Results for August %
613:Wikiquette assistance
474:
426:
333:(original research),
202:Arbitration Committee
122:Wikiquette assistance
88:
59:Arbitration Committee
693:First response time
638:Requests for comment
432:April survey results
417:Community Fellowship
329:(reliable sources),
182:Conflict of Interest
827:, by Steven Zhang.
806:share your views...
788:third opinions (3O)
198:Mediation Committee
103:new javascript form
55:Mediation Committee
685:Results for August
504:Average resolution
478:
467:a dispute quickly.
429:
361:(external links),
218:, accessible from
154:Dispute resolution
95:
768:
767:
661:
660:
481:Activity analysis
309:
308:
166:Original Research
89:Stage one of the
49:Until late 2003,
869:
847:
842:
832:The Olive Branch
764:
745:
726:
707:
682:Goals for August
673:
672:
588:Formal Mediation
486:
485:
313:The Olive Branch
279:
278:
273:The Olive Branch
267:The Olive Branch
162:Reliable Sources
128:Proposed changes
28:The Olive Branch
877:
876:
872:
871:
870:
868:
867:
866:
852:
851:
850:
843:
839:
762:
743:
724:
705:
563:Mediation Cabal
277:
178:Fringe theories
118:Mediation Cabal
81:Progress so far
62:different way.
32:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
875:
865:
864:
849:
848:
836:
794:For Discussion
766:
765:
760:
757:
754:
751:
747:
746:
741:
738:
735:
732:
728:
727:
722:
719:
716:
713:
709:
708:
703:
700:
697:
696:16 hrs 36 mins
694:
690:
689:
686:
683:
680:
679:Result for May
677:
659:
658:
655:
652:
649:
646:
643:
640:
634:
633:
630:
627:
624:
621:
618:
615:
609:
608:
605:
602:
599:
596:
593:
590:
584:
583:
580:
577:
574:
571:
568:
565:
559:
558:
555:
552:
549:
546:
543:
540:
534:
533:
530:
527:
524:
521:
518:
515:
509:
508:
505:
502:
499:
496:
493:
490:
469:
468:
464:
460:
457:
454:
450:
447:
443:
365:(notability),
357:(page moves),
307:
306:
286:
285:
276:
270:
248:
247:
243:
240:
237:
233:
230:
227:
212:
211:
208:
205:
190:External links
150:
147:
144:
130:
129:
83:
82:
47:
46:
42:
41:
31:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
874:
863:
860:
859:
857:
846:
841:
837:
835:
833:
828:
826:
822:
818:
816:
812:
808:
807:
803:
799:
795:
791:
789:
784:
780:
776:
772:
761:
758:
755:
752:
750:Success rate
748:
742:
739:
736:
733:
729:
723:
720:
717:
714:
710:
704:
701:
698:
695:
691:
687:
684:
681:
678:
675:
674:
671:
669:
665:
656:
653:
650:
647:
644:
641:
639:
636:
635:
631:
628:
625:
622:
619:
616:
614:
611:
610:
606:
603:
600:
597:
594:
591:
589:
586:
585:
581:
578:
575:
572:
569:
566:
564:
561:
560:
556:
553:
550:
547:
544:
541:
539:
536:
535:
531:
528:
525:
522:
519:
516:
514:
513:Third opinion
511:
510:
507:Success rate
506:
503:
500:
497:
494:
491:
488:
487:
484:
482:
473:
465:
461:
458:
455:
453:satisfactory.
451:
448:
444:
441:
440:
439:
437:
433:
425:
421:
418:
414:
410:
406:
404:
400:
396:
392:
388:
384:
383:Third opinion
380:
376:
372:
368:
364:
360:
356:
352:
349:(copyright),
348:
344:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
316:
314:
305:
304:
301:
297:
293:
288:
287:
284:
281:
280:
274:
269:
268:
263:
262:
261:
255:
253:
244:
241:
238:
234:
231:
228:
225:
224:
223:
221:
217:
209:
206:
203:
199:
195:
194:Third opinion
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
148:
145:
142:
141:
140:
138:
133:
127:
126:
125:
123:
119:
114:
110:
108:
104:
100:
92:
87:
80:
79:
78:
76:
71:
68:
63:
60:
56:
52:
44:
43:
40:
39:
34:
33:
29:
19:
840:
831:
829:
820:
819:
810:
809:
793:
792:
782:
774:
773:
769:
667:
666:
662:
623:Not assessed
520:Not assessed
495:participants
480:
479:
436:its findings
431:
430:
413:Steven Zhang
408:
407:
402:
318:
317:
312:
310:
291:
289:
282:
272:
266:
264:
257:
256:
251:
249:
215:
213:
136:
134:
131:
115:
111:
96:
72:
64:
48:
35:
27:
476:resolution.
415:whose 2012
353:(mergers),
260:RfC --: -->
51:Jimmy Wales
804:? Please
783:increasing
737:5 - 7 days
699:<10 hrs
629:45.5 hours
498:volunteers
446:satisfied.
319:Background
158:Neutrality
45:Background
811:Coming up
702:5h 29 min
626:5.3 hours
399:WP:ARBCOM
397:. Last,
335:WP:FRINGE
283:Attention
856:Category
821:See Also
734:8.6 days
554:8.6 days
526:25 hours
492:disputes
409:Research
379:WP:RFC/U
107:template
57:and the
604:15 days
579:28 days
557:47.61%
343:WP:NFCR
323:WP:BLPN
759:64.29%
753:47.61%
676:Metric
632:21.4%
395:WP:RFC
371:WP:AN3
367:WP:ANI
363:WP:N/N
359:WP:ELN
347:WP:MCQ
331:WP:ORN
327:WP:RSN
300:Ocaasi
292:opt-in
582:100%
489:Forum
403:a lot
355:WP:RM
351:WP:PM
339:WP:CP
298:. --
246:time.
214:2) A
135:1) A
16:<
813:: A
756:70%+
657:N/A
532:52%
296:here
75:here
38:here
777:is
718:30+
654:N/A
651:N/A
648:N/A
607:0%
601:N/A
576:N/A
545:207
529:N/A
523:N/A
345:or
341:or
858::
830:--
642:15
620:67
617:17
595:25
570:17
548:25
542:42
517:31
315:!
265:--
254:.
222:.
200:,
196:,
192:,
188:,
184:,
180:,
176:,
172:,
168:,
164:,
160:,
156:,
77:.
598:4
592:7
573:5
567:4
204:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
