- So, to be clear, we are still focusing on content with this proposal and not editor behavior, correct?-- Mark Miller ( talk) 20:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, with perhaps a bit more involvement in conduct in a refereeing kind of way, but not really so much differently than we do in keeping control of a discussion at DRN. (And thanks for looking.) —
TransporterMan (
TALK) 20:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've clarified that slightly in the proposal, but it should be made much more explicit in the NPPR page. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 20:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, with perhaps a bit more involvement in conduct in a refereeing kind of way, but not really so much differently than we do in keeping control of a discussion at DRN. (And thanks for looking.) —
TransporterMan (
TALK) 20:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- I like that this formalises the existing 'wiki' process of involving third-parties in disputes, but I worry it will be unfeasible. Mediators are a special group of volunteers who resolve other people's disputes within an extraordinary framework. Mediators are afforded protection and some degree of authority (moral or otherwise). Is the process likely to work if it is centred on a type of person like, but without the protection afforded to, a mediator? Will people even want to do this job: how many Wikipedians want to sort other people's dirty laundry? AGK [•] 22:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- I can certainly say without hesitation that the DRN volunteers are afforded no protection or any degree of authority". At all. The framework is a guide and there is no special test but only a few requirements to adhere to and meet, like being a registered user to add you name to the volunteer list and being a confirmed user....and I'm not even positive those are current guidelines to be a DRN volunteer. It is pretty much the same as volunteering at 30 accept more structured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Miller ( talk • contribs)
- That's precisely my fear, that this will turn into DRN—more or less perpetually backlogged. AGK [•] 23:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- I kind of disagree with that characterization of DRN, but I do wonder if the proposed process will draw many volunteers. The fact of the matter is that what I'm proposing here could be done right now by any editor without the framework of this process. And, indeed, I've seen third-party neutral editors try to step into disputes to act as a moderator. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't (but that comment could become the motto of DR in general). Two things which frequently keep it from working, in my opinion, is insufficient identification of the intervenor as a neutral party and insufficient concentration on the intervenor's part not to get caught up in the frey. The proposal would help to cure those problems by educating both the intervenor and the disputants as to the intervenor's purpose and duties and requiring a certain degree of formality to continuously remind everyone — including the intervenor — why the intervenor is there. As for the laundry-sorting question, I guess that's what we in DR do and why it is so difficult to retain volunteers. Best regards,
TransporterMan (
TALK) 16:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- The dispute resolution process is confusing, overwhelming and frustrating for many new or intermediate level users. I think additional options for dispute resolution are good. I would be in favor of this NPPR option as an addition to the other DR options but without restrictions or prerequisites. Yes, there are instances when a dispute is not addressed because an editor refuses to leave the talk page and go to DRN or Mediation. But...... there are also many instances where this option would be a valuable first step in any dispute. It is preferable in many instances to keep the discussion on the article talk page rather than moving it to a specialized forum. If a person can ask for outside input at a noticeboard or project page or 3O, why shouldn't they be able to post at NPPR and ask for a random editor to join the talk page? I think it's a very good idea and I would open it up and not restrict its use.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- T. Man: It isn't always backlogged, though it is a lot of the time, but the backlog is kept under control only through an enormous effort by the talented volunteers at DRN. I simply question whether we can seriously replicate the Herculean effort that underpins DRN at a second venue. AGK [•] 23:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- I kind of disagree with that characterization of DRN, but I do wonder if the proposed process will draw many volunteers. The fact of the matter is that what I'm proposing here could be done right now by any editor without the framework of this process. And, indeed, I've seen third-party neutral editors try to step into disputes to act as a moderator. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't (but that comment could become the motto of DR in general). Two things which frequently keep it from working, in my opinion, is insufficient identification of the intervenor as a neutral party and insufficient concentration on the intervenor's part not to get caught up in the frey. The proposal would help to cure those problems by educating both the intervenor and the disputants as to the intervenor's purpose and duties and requiring a certain degree of formality to continuously remind everyone — including the intervenor — why the intervenor is there. As for the laundry-sorting question, I guess that's what we in DR do and why it is so difficult to retain volunteers. Best regards,
TransporterMan (
TALK) 16:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi all. I've read over the proposal and have some longwinded comments to make, as always (grin). But I'll leave them for the morning :) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 15:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see a point to "The NP must not actually edit the article" or "The NP will only remain involved so long as the immediate matter in dispute remains unresolved". They seem overly restrictive and unnecessary. What purpose are they supposed to serve? Jackmcbarn ( talk) 01:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
As described, the Indefinite voluntary topic ban seems excessive. How about six months for obvious vandalism, one year for unrelated topics on the same page, two years for the topic under dispute, broadly construed? I wouldn't be comfortable agreeing to never be involved in a page. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
@ TransporterMan: I like this idea a lot. While I would not qualify as a mediator under this program I have tried to do something similar since I have started editing here by picking topics from noticeboards that seem to be going in circles and joining in like at Splashed white, Polaroid Kiss (Mostly on my talk page) The Project for the New American Century (That was a failure and a learning experience that flashed straight to Arbcom) and now at Sugar Mountain Farm. My experiences in each of those were different both in how I approached the issues and what the result was. Having some formal process to fall back on would have been a great help.
If this is revived I would like to participate in its design. The concept is great and I believe it will help in many situations. I am not sure on some of the particulars but that is what this page is about. Cheers. Jbh ( talk) 13:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)