Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conflict Resolution

How is this project different from Dispute Resolution project

How is this project different from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dispute_Resolution? --Noleander (talk) 11:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the 2-year old Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dispute_Resolution project is a bit dormant: only a few posts have been made on its talk page in the past 6 months. Maybe the community's limited resoruces would be better spent reviving that other project, rather than starting a new one? --Noleander (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly the thought that I had when I saw this. It's great that Amadscientist is doing this, but it does seem redundant with WPDR. Perhaps some sort of merge is in order? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Reading the project page, I get the impression that what is meant by "conflict" is something more serious than just a severe editing dispute. But such severe problems do end up at DR, or at AN/I or at ArbCom while it may be dealt with using a different sort of DR process. Count Iblis (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps one could focus more on content and the other (this one, due to the difference in names — dispute vs conflict) more on conduct. But the bigger problem, I think is that those who don't care about DR don't care about it and those of us who do care about DR spend our available time doing it, rather than talking about it. Still, I applaud the effort. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but then things have gradually changed here in recent years, the ArbCom system we have is not an ideal venue for disruptive problem editors to raise their grievances. That's a good thing w.r.t. the problems posed by such editors, but there are always editors who don't fit into that category, but who have been involved in long standing disputes. For them going to ArbCom would lead to a (topic) ban. DR won't work well if the conflict has festered for too long, so we need something that can address behavioral issues but not in the way we do this at ArbCom or AN/I. An example could be the climate change case that was poorly handled by ArbCom. One could argue that topic banning the most prominent editors from both sides did work, but that's like amputating a limb to cure an infection. Count Iblis (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you clarify your point? Are you saying that WP should create a new DR process? To supplement the existing processes already outlined in WP:Dispute resolution? If so, that is a major undertaking that requires an RfC and should be publicized in WP:Centralized discussions and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). That hypothetical process is probably not a great idea, given the simplifications that the DR process-system recently gained thanks to S. Zhang's research (namely, eliminating the underutilized WP:Mediation cabal and Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance). Even if a new DR process were formed, that would be distinct from a project, which is what this talk page is discussing. Any new DR process would fall under the WP:Dispute resolution umbrella anyway, and there is already an (underutilized) project to cover that. --Noleander (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• My belief is that WPDR focuses on content, while WPCR focuses on conduct. Isn't that so? Even, CR can also focus on content. In other matters: Who will design the page? I am very good making fancy WProject pages :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

No, the DR project covers the WP:Dispute resolution processes ... which include both content and behavior issues. They key point here is that WP has too many things to do and too few editors. The existing DR project is already gathering dust ... does WP really need a second similar project? Resources are spread thin already. Better is to take our efforts and focus on the existing DR project. For instance, if you want to do some page layout work, perhaps you could visit the DR project and work on it. --Noleander (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I find dispute resolution to be overbearing. And not many editors want to take care of things like this. This wikiproject may have similar goals, but the process is completely different. For example, this wikiproject can help approve guidelines, policies, and essays that could help conduct issues before they arise.Lucia Black (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Lucia: I cannot understand the points you are trying to make. When you say you find DR to be "overbearing" which DR processes are you referring to? Do you consider WP:Third opinion process to be overbearing? What do you think of the fact that processes such as WP:Mediation cabal and Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance both shut down recently due to lack of participation? Are you aware that the effort to shut them down took a large amount of resources and time? When you say "not many editors want to take care of things like this" what specifically do you mean by "this"? --Noleander (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

As a general rule, boldness is a fine quality when it comes to editing content, but the same principles do not apply to WP processes, which normally should not just be made from whole cloth by one user who just decided one day that we needed yet another noticeboard. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The principle applies to all of Wikipedia. It starts somewhere. This isn't a process or even a proposal for a process. We already have processs in place, but what we lack are some venues for this issue. This isn't a noticeboard, although a proposal for one isn't a bad idea and may be made. This is a collboration of editors interested in conflict resolution between editors and ways to overcome them and move past them to improve the encyclopedia, the experiance of editors and the retention of contributers.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this project is for editor conduct/conflict

Like Project DR, which was designed as a collaboration for editors to help resolve small content disputes with only minor conduct issues, this project focuses of the conduct and conflict between editors that may or may not involve content, but as with DR/N, we will allow some small discussion of content. If the main issue is a content dispute it would be defered to another DR process like DR/N or RFC etc. This project is for helping the community deal with severe conduct and conflict, not just any random fight when two editors can't get along. We still have 3.0 for that and we still have all the other DR processes. Project DR itself is simply not about conduct and this project is. Many disputes are not actual conflicts. They just don't agree on content. That is a normal part of the Wikipedia structure. "Conflict" is when editors cannot resolve a dispute and conduct becaomes a bigger issue than the original dispute. This is just one area that has not been sufficiantly covered by the DR process without going all the way to arbitration and there should be something before editors need to take that route.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, conflicts are when editors cannot resolve a dispute and conduct becomes a major issue than the original dispute. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

@Amadscientist - It sounds like you are contemplating a new dispute resolution process ... apparently aimed at resolving large-scale conduct-oriented conflicts between editors. S. Zhang spent a lot of time studying the DR process and - after a lot of work - was successful in streamlining the overall DR process by eliminating MedCab and Wiketiquette. Creating a new process so soon after eliminating two is a bad idea. To go forward with this, we need to make the proposal within an RfC and publicize the RfC at the Village Pump and Centralized Discussions. Creating a new conduct-oriented process is a big deal, with lots of ramifications (e.g. Will admins be involved? Will they issue blocks? Will this process be added to the DisputeResolution sidebar? How will this process differ from the processes that were eliminated? How will this process differ from AN or ANI? Will this new process dilute the DR effort by spreading volunteers thinner over more forums?) --Noleander (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Nothing has been proposed as yet. This is a collaboration of editors interested in conflict resolution, a WikiProject similar to WP:DRP, WP:TH and WP:WER. The question about admin is answered as simply, they may be involved at whatever level they wish just like at the DR project. Creating a new process can be duanting, but is not impossible if you mean an actual process in the same manner as DR/N. Right now we have not advanced that far, but I am very familiar with the route Zhang took and have been involved with some of those discussions and consensus. I am using Steven Zhang's example here by beginning with a WikiProject, something that does not require an RFC process to begin. Just like articles can be created using the AFC process, WikiProjects can be proposed first at the Project council page, but this is not a requirement. WP:WER was a bold creation as I believe was WP:DRP. Yes, this project and subprojects will differ from other "processes" that were eliminated like the cabal that didn't exist and exists even less now, as well as the defunct Wiketiquette board, which, by the way, was a civility enforcement page...and I think we all agree civility is not an issue that can be enforced in that manner. But this is not a civility project. It is a conflict resolution project and is designed to help eliminate old and new conflict issues through resolutions everyone can live with in a non binding way for issues that go beyond simple incivility.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

AMS: You wrote:

Project DR, which was designed as a collaboration for editors to help resolve small content disputes with only minor conduct issues

That is not correct. Look at these pages:

• Template:Dispute-resolution
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution
• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests

All of those pages embrace all disputes: conduct & content. None of those are limited to content only. I think you are confusing the umbrella term "dispute resolution" (DR - for all conduct & content disputes) with the "Dispute Resolution Noticeboard" (DRN - for content only). In fact, there are two other editors on this page, relative newcomers apparently, that are now repeating that "dispute resolution" is for content only. Is it your intention to limit the scope of "dispute resolution" to content-only disputes? Or when you wrote "dispute resolution" did you mean "dispute resolution noticeboard"? --Noleander (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

While I'm not sure that I'm entirely on board with the creation of this project, I do think that Amad is correct in the quote, though I would suggest that "incidental conduct issues" might be a better phrase that than "minor conduct issues." Current DR processes, by which I mean 3O, DRN, MEDCOM, and the content flavor of RFC (that is, vs RFC/U) do not handle, and will ordinarily reject consideration of, disputes which are wholly or primarily conduct disputes. If cases are accepted which have an incidental conduct component, that component is ordinarily not addressed other than to tell the disputants to avoid continuing it as part of the DR process. I don't think that Amad or anyone else is saying that current DR processes are "only" for content disputes. And if the newcomers listening here have taken the idea that current DR processes will not accept disputes which have any conduct component then they are mistaken. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

TM: When you list "DR processes" why do you exclude RFCU and ARBCOM? The Dispute resoluiton page has an entire section on handling conduct disputes. The DR sidebar has an entire subsection on "conduct disputes". The suggestion (made earlier) that "current DR processes are only for content disputes" is not accurate: what we tell users is "RFC/DRN/3O/Mediation are for issues that are primarily content disputes; if you have a conduct issue, go to RFCU, ARBCOM, AN, or ANI". It is all under the DR umbrella. Creating more processes & projects will just dilute the limited resources we have. --Noleander (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Response, per se: Nol, I certainly concur that the sidebar at WP:DR includes some conduct processes. In light of the purpose of that sidebar (as opposed to the DR policy page itself), that's probably a good thing as a general guide to where to go to find things (and it does break them down, correctly, into content vs conduct, except for listing 3O under both content and conduct (see below). IMHO, as much as anything the real problem is that the DR policy page is itself a dog's dinner. There's no vested community standing behind it to keep it up to date and coordinated with the changes at the various DR projects — which on the Wikipedia geological time scale are fairly continuous — and it's often out of sync both in general philosophy and in detail with them. Moreover, it's really more of a general guidance page (unfortunately, since it doesn't do a very good job of it) than it is a policy page and does not do much (if any?) of the kind of things or take the kinds of positions that policy pages ordinarily do. The fact is that in my own head I don't much think of the conduct-DR processes you list as being part of DR and I've become unconsciously lax in just saying "DR processes" when what I really mean is "conduct DR processes". Thanks for the trout and I'll be more careful in that regard in the future, but I stand by the substance of what I said above, i.e. that I don't think that anyone is saying that "current DR processes are only for content disputes". As for your final point about creating more processes & projects, I may very well agree with you and that's the reason I began my last post about perhaps not being on board with this new project. Moving on to that issue: I do think the issue about additional conduct DR processes is one worth talking about — I'm not saying that we ought to add any, just that we ought to talk about it — but I'm not sure we need a new project for that purpose unless there is some considerable sentiment that we do need them. I was not altogether in favor of shutting down Wikiquette assistance (WQA), not because I thought much was settled at that dramafest but because it provided a place for people to vent. At the same time, I wasn't utterly against it, and it was closed with Wikipedia:Sanity checks proposed to replace it. That idea was then dropped in favor of making 3O serve that purpose. Then the 3O community rejected that proposal and the matter died, leaving us with a gap where WQA once stood and a bad entry, it appears, in the Conduct section of the sidebar. Whether that gap needs to be filled, and whether it is possible without creating a new dramafest, is a matter which is worthy of some discussion. I'm just not sure this is the place to do it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm also somewhat supportive of this project. I'm interested to see how it fits and will happily be involved with it. From my perspective it seems that the conduct dispute avenues go straight to admin level intervention and up (ANI, RfC/U ArbCom) while this could fill a gap for smaller conduct disputes that don't require admins to be involved. As in two people are arguing about conduct, they can come here and get some impartial mediation on the dispute with, perhaps, voluntary sanctions (too strong a word?) on both parties. If that works, great, if not then it gets kicked up the DR chain. I would see this as being on a similar level to 3O/DRN in that respect. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

This is something we really need. As Cabe points out, conduct disputes are treated at the Admin level and can end up at ArbCom. The problem here is that often there is little room to look also at content (because Admins must stay uninvolved). Consider e.g. how a sort of general sanctions regime imposed before the climate change ArbCom case started, failed (which led to that ArbCom case). It failed because if you only look at conduct (and there was plenty of bad conduct to deal with), that can be exploited by editors, and the whole thing degenerates into a game where some editors try to get other editors banned. Count Iblis (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to starting a discussion about whether or not WP needs a new process/forum/venue for handling conduct disputes. What I do object to is: (1) the phraseology used in this new Conflict Resolution project is contradictory to phraseology used in all other DR pages, where "dispute resolution" is clearly an umbrella term that includes conduct/behavior issues. (2) This project appears to be starting from scratch, re-inventing the wheel: instead it should explicitly start with Zhang's research & statistics gathered over the past year, and with the recent process eliminations (as TM lists above), and build on that background. And (3) Creating a new process is a big deal. The first thing that should be done is create an RfC and a place prominent notice at WP:Centralized Discussions. --Noleander (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

If we want to create new policies then we need community wide discussions. But if we try to formalize things too much before actually trying out something, chances are that after a lot of effort things won't work. It's better to try out things informally (we should, of course, study the experiences they have at DR). If the community thinks positively about what we've actually achieved they will want to include what we have in the policies. Count Iblis (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Creating a new process is a big deal. Discussing and Designing a potential new process that may at some time in the future become an actual new process is not. Creating an RfC is not the first thing that should be done. Brainstorming, discussing, deciding whether to proceed, and deciding what questions the RfC should ask come before any RfC. You should not take the square peg of a WikiProject that was created to talk about what to do and pounding it into the round hole of a RfC that is designed to gather wide community input after you have a pretty good idea about what you want to do. Frankly, I don't need an RfC or anyone's permission to start or join a WikiProject. Wikipedia:WikiProject says "A WikiProject is a group of editors that want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia." and "Groups of like-minded editors may start new WikiProjects at any time and are encouraged, but not obligated, to propose them before doing so." --Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Trouble is, the doors were just thrown open by one user and the project was declared open for business, apparently without any discussion whatsoever. I mean, look at the main page. It indicates that the project's goals are already being addressed and progress is being made on a project that just started yesterday. So, yeah, I opened an RFC because I think it is a dangerous thing for one person to just create a new area for dispute resolution, declare what its goals are, and claim it is ready to start resolving disputes without even giving us a clue how it intends to do that. I agree wholeheartedly that all this should have been discussed beforehand, but that did not happen. I don't mean to imply that this was done in anything but good faith and an honest attempt to help, but I think some folks are being a bit naive if they think resolving behavioral disputes is so easy that all you have to do is say "here we are, bring us your dispute" and somehow they will be able to resolve it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The way you talk about the doors being thrown open by one user and the project being declared open for business without any prior discussion, you make it sound as if that is a bad thing. It isn't. If you think that creating a WikiProject requires any sort of prior activity or any particular quality level at the start, go ahead and propose that in the appropriate place, but right now there are no such requirements.

I am not disagreeing about the wording having problems that need to be fixed. I sort of expect new projects of any kind to suck at first. The answer, however, is not a merge or an RfC. The answer is either fixing the problems yourself or alerting Amadscientist about specific wording that needs to be fixed. He tends to take that sort of constructive criticism very well and usually comes up with a greatly improved rewrite of the section in question. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

• Note from opener of RFC: Just to be clear, all that is being looked for here is a greater degree of community involvement in the development of this project, which up until now has been mostly the creation of one user. I have listed this RFC at WP:CENT in the hopes of drawing in broad input from the wider community. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge with existing Dispute Resolution project - I have no objection to starting a discussion about whether or not WP needs a new process/forum/venue for handling conduct disputes. But there are a few problems with this project:

• Duplication: WP already has a Dispute Resolution project which is intended to include conduct disputes (as well as content disputes). Creating a second project spreads limited resources too thin.
• The phraseology used in this new Conflict Resolution project is contradictory to phraseology used in all other DR pages. Throughout DR pages, the phrase "dispute resolution" is clearly an umbrella term that includes conduct/behavior issues.
• This project appears to be starting from scratch, re-inventing the wheel: instead it should explicitly start with Zhang's research & statistics gathered over the past year, and with a survey of the recently eliminated processes (WP:Mediation cabal andWikipedia:Wikiquette assistance), and build on that background.

I recommend that this project be deleted; and that this discussion about a possible new process/forum for conduct issues be moved to the existing Dispute Resolution project. --Noleander (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Baring a large scale discussion, and strong consensus to the contrary, members have no special authority outside the project's own space. With a few very small exceptions, no one but Arbcom, and permissions holders to the extent the act cannot be carried out without the permission, have special authority beyond that of a regular editor. Likewise the project's decisions should only be binding within its own space. If participants want to be voluntarily be bound by outcomes elsewhere, that is probably ok. Anything beyond that would be a major new process and require a great deal of community scrutiny. Monty₈₄₅ 17:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I recommend that we back off and let this project grow. There are two things I know about Amadscientist. First, he is comfortable with trying something new even if it goes against conventional wisdom. Second, he is comfortable with killing it if it becomes obvious that it isn't working, Sort of like *cough* a Mad Scientist. This is closer to the way Wikipedia started out. I say let it grow and see what the harvest is rather than setting fire to the seedlings. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

If this were a content project I would agree 100% and we probably would not be having this discussion at all. But this project deals with user behavior, a very contentious area of WP dispute resolution, without providing any real specifics of how it would actually resolve anything. If we can develop a way to resolve conflicts relating to user behavior without resorting to the torches-and-pitchforks route or kicking it upo to ArbCom I am all for it, but what we have here so far is just vagueries, it doesn't seem like anyone would know what to actually do if and when a dispute is brought here other than draw attention to it. Maybe that is all it will do, I don't know but the fact that it is structured as a project means it is by definition a collaboration that should be inviting rather than resisting outside input. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I would know what to do if and when a dispute is brought here. I would respond be explaining that this is a WikiProject that works on improving how Wikipedia resolves disputes, not a place to bring individual disputes. Then I would refer them to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no resistance to outside input. The membership area is clear that no one need be a member to help in any way.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That was more intended as a response to the above comment than an accusation, obviously it is far too soon to make any such broad statements about the project. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nice image, Guy. I agree; it's worth hanging onto this to see how it develops. I too was a bit skeptical at first, and checked out what Amadscientist's aims were before being sufficiently enthused to sign on. I'm of the opinion that this could develop into something worthwhile: a hub for directing disputes to the correct venues, a place for like-minded editors to discuss conflict resolution strategies, a neutral forum for grievances to be debated under pre-agreed conditions, a Wikiquette Teahouse, a "non-content only" DRN - there are lots of avenues this project could take, and if it does them well, it could be a balm to the fractured Wikipedia community. If it crashes and burns, well, I'll happily dust myself off and apply Savlon to the affected areas; on balance I think the ride might be worth it. Yunshui 雲‍水 20:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Both Guy and Yunshui put it well. I will address the Bullet listed questions:

• Does the community desire to have this project at all?

Yes, the community seems to desire this project based on the number of participants in just the initial phase of development with membership and interest growing.

• Do "members" of this project have any special authority and are they expected to have any experience in dispute resolution?

Just like Project Dispute Resolution, no experience is needed and no authority is granted or implied, as we are a simple collaboration and not a noticeboard. Even at DR/N and Wikipedia in general, no experience is needed, no special powers of authority are granted or suggested. We learn and grow together.

• How binding are decisions made here?

This is a WikiProject and no decisions are binding to any individual or the overall general community.

• It has been stated by the primary architect of this project that this is not a noticeboard or a process. What is it? What does the community want it to be?

This is a collaboration of editors with a shared interest. Consensus will determine such things as "Suggestions to avoid conflict", and other possible ideas as mentioned above by User:Yunshui.

• How does this project relate to the established process of user requests for comment? Is it intended as a prerequisite, substitute, or something else altogether?

As a Wikiproject this in itself has no effect on the established process of RFC/U. The RFC/U process is to comment on an individual. This project is not aimed at individuals but the community as a whole. It is neither a prerequisite nor a substitute for any current process. This is not civility enforcement and is not a cabal (which never existed and exists even less now).--Amadscientist (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: "Even at DR/N and Wikipedia in general, no experience is needed, no special powers of authority are granted or suggested", when I help out with a case at WP:DRN I always start by cutting and pasting the following:

"Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to read the Guide for participants at the top of this page. Thanks! (my signature)"

Several other DRN volunteers use similar opening statements. --Guy Macon (talk)

• I observe that there is very little that differentiates this project from the more broadly supported WikiProject Dispute Resolution. I observe that the project's founder has, in the past, tried to push radical ideas a specific DR venue talk pages (such as the Dispute Resolution Noticebard talk page). Before being an officially chartered wiki project (and I'd like to see where the authorization from WP:COUNCIL came from) I'd like to hear a concise explanation as to what this project expects to achieve that is not already covered by WPDR? If editors wish to form a task force inside WPDR for the express purpose of dealing with conduct disputes, that's one thing, but to do it in this way almost feels like bikeshedding. Hasteur (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the comment about "pushed for radical ideas". In the past, I have proposed and implemented an assortment of ideas that have garnered the support and implementation by a number of editors, including the WP:WER User statement (that was copied by numerous, established and respected editors as a good idea):

WP:RETENTION: This editor is willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask.

I don't believe "radical" is accurate. About projects, Wikipedia WikiProjects are not authorized or given official charter. Any editor may create a WikiProject. This was touched on last year (and several other times elsewhere) this month in the thread: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Archive 17#When Was The Change Authorized And By Whom?--Amadscientist (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

When editors refer to WPDR it is often difficult to know exactly what they are referring to. There is the policy page:Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, The WikiProject page:Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution and a noticeboard Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. While related in one way or another, they are separate and deal with different things.

The purpose of this project is to address concerns of conflict between editors that may or may not relate to a specific content dispute or has gone beyond a resolution of the original content dispute. This project pertains to the needs of the community to resolve issues between editors causing conflicts related to conduct and in some small amount to content. While the projects main purpose is not content, some content may be discussed in possible relation to the lasting conflict between editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• While I'm not necessarily in favor of the retention of this project, I'm opposed to this RFC, so I suppose that on balance I must !vote in favor of project retention. My opposition to this RFC is partly because the questions asked in the RFC seem to presume that this is something more than just another editor-interest project and partly because it's a less than desirable process, the favored process being a Miscellany for deletion nomination. If I felt more strongly about this project being undesirable, I might file such a MfD, but I don't. I might (or might not) at some point in the future, but I don't feel the need at this point. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be an assumtion that I opened this RFC in an attempt to destry this project before it gets started. While it is possible that some users feel that way that was not my intent at all, if my goal was deletion of this project I am fully aware of how to file an MFD and would have done so. I just think it makes more sense to have broad participation in the development of any project/process/wahtever it is that aims to resolve interpersonal disputes, and I think a bit more specificity regarding exactly what this project would actually do is in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe your intent is to destroy the project. However I do believe the RFC has possibly confused some editors. To answer your concern, this project is designed to discuss ways to resolve conflicts between editors that may not even regard content at all, have gone past a resolution to content or concern conduct between multiple editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

AMS: I would help others understand your intention if you could provide concrete examples of actual conflicts that are within the scope you envision for this project (and are outside the scope of the existing Dispute Resolution project). Could you provide links to a couple of recent conflicts (within talk pages, AN, etc) that are representative? --Noleander (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That would be a matter of consensus of editors to determine here once we get started. I don't feel comfortable discussing editors outside of any particular mediation attempt, but in general: conflicts that have not been resolved after a dispute resolution, conflicts that have nothing to do with a content dispute and conflicts between editors where topics are heated and conduct has become an issue between multiple editors even before or just after a dispute has arisen. There have been a number of ANI conflict discussions pertaining to a number of editors, situations and topics where editors are engaged in long term conflict over a number of pages and articles for many different reasons.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying you cannot give a single example of an actual conflict that would fall within the scope of this project (and outside WP:DR or ANI or RFCU)? Feel free go back several years if needed. --Noleander (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not saying a I can't. I am saying I am not comfortable discussing individual editors or using them as examples in a general discussion of this type to hold them up and identified for ridicule or embarrassment. Now, if you would like, I can ask specific editors permission but cannot guarantee they would be accepting.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

How can this project define its scope if actual conflicts cannot be discussed? Are you suggesting that all project discussions will revolve around hypothetical, abstract conflicts? --Noleander (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I will not discuss actual editors to satisfy your questions. This projects scope does not require a discussion of actual conflicts between real editors to be defined.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Before I go on, I want to make something clear: I don't want my opinion to be weighed more heavily solely because of my activities with dispute resolution over the last year as a Wikimedia Fellow. That said, do look at the research I undertook and consider how it applies here.

I've thought about this project for a while, and I do applaud innovation and new ideas. The dispute resolution community is an important one and anything we can do to make it a more pleasant experience for editors, I think we should consider doing. However, I don't think it wise for us to reinvent the wheel. A few examples: have a look at where Wikipedia:Conflict resolution redirects to. It does fall under the banner of dispute resolution, they are really one and the same thing. While the dispute resolution wikiproject has indeed been inactive (as have I), I think that the efforts to reform Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes best be served by expanding the scope of the WPDR project rather than segregating tasks into a new project. I also noticed that the goals and scope of Wikiproject Conflict Resolution are very similar to the goals and scope of Wikiproject Dispute Resolution. I don't exactly understand what the project is trying to accomplish that WPDR cannot do, or indeed isn't doing already. In an ideal world, it'd always be ideal for us to prevent disputes/conflict from happening in the first place, but with the nature of Wikipedia and it's openness to editing, this is difficult to achieve. Arming our editors with ways they can resolve disputes themselves I think is the best result we can hope for. Some have suggested this could be a forum for directing disputes to the correct forum, however this is something that the universal dispute resolution request form would accomplish (that's a prototype, I still need to do some work on it but you get the idea.) I really do appreciate the effort to move forward with reform, but I do think we would serve the community better by consolidating our efforts into one location (the DR project). In regards to myself, I have been busy with my duties on the Wikimedia Australia chapter, but I think I have some sort of balance now so I will be returning shortly and getting back to work on dispute resolution. Please don't take what I say as criticism, I just feel we can accomplish more by centralising all our efforts into one place. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 06:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the best way we can help the problems is to work on the disputes that are open (and close them if they've resolved themselves). I'll do some too myself. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 06:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I simply used your opening at the DR project as an example to start this project with modifications, that is why the goals look similar but that alone does not mean the projects cover the same thing. They don't. Conflict and dispute are not the same thing. One thing I must ask, if you decline I will understand, but you said: "that WPDR cannot do, or indeed isn't doing already" other than arbitration and RFC/U is there another venue that deals primarily with conduct and conflict outside of content disputes?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

As I sated on your talkpage:

"...the purpose of this project is to pick up where the DR project leaves off. Mainly with editor conflict and conduct. This is not a civility enforcement taskgroup. We are not attempting to make people act nice to each other or take on issues of simple name calling and incivility. Our goal is to provide tools and venues where editors can help mediate over conflicts that may not even be over content with the goal of improving the quality of experiance for everyone."--Amadscientist (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it important to mention that the redirect that was brought up has nothing to do with either projects. It was created in 2007 and was in regards to clarification due to the existing article's title which was started in 2004. However when you look at what the Dispute Resolution page began as [1], you can clearly see that it was actually meant as conflict resolution and not the more specific term of dispute resolution. WP:DRP was started 1 year and 4 months ago. Even after three days into it's creation it had no scope or goals.[2]. While the terms can sometimes be interchangeable, the article on CR is far superior to the Dispute resolution article which appears to be an after thought and has a single reference. Is it possible the WP:DRP should be renamed if there truly are no venues to deal with groups of editors in a conflict not involving content directly? If indeed there is only the huge gap between individual conduct with RFC/U and formal arbitration.....is it not possible that this project indeed does cover a topic and issue not covered by WP:DRP?--Amadscientist (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

My point is just this. I believe there is a difference between the two projects. I believe they can exist simultaneously. I believe they have differing goals and scopes and can be separated even further by consensus but the basic concept is appropriate and need not be merged or incorporated into another project due to simple confusion and the idea that this "should have been started under the other project". I believe there are inadequate ways to deal with an issue that is certainly plaguing Wikipedia. I believe we should be given the chance and opportunity to prove ourselves. If this works then great, if not, as Yunshui stated: "If it crashes and burns, well, I'll happily dust myself off and apply Savlon to the affected areas".--Amadscientist (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Report from the Future! - I have a time machine, and I just travelled into the future. Here is what I saw:

• March 2013: Conflict Resolution Project (CRP) created
• April 2013: the CRP creates the Conflict Resolution Noticeboard (CRN) - The CRN is for disputes that primarily involve user conduct. The CRN's layout & processes are copied from WP:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (DRN).
• May 2013: the CRN is added to Template:Dispute-resolution and Template:Noticeboard_links
• June 2013: Editors get confused trying to choose between DRN and CRN because every dispute involves both content & conduct.
• July to Dec 2013: Editors choose CRN instead of DRN because CRN will permit discussion of the other editors' wicked behavior.
• 2014: DRN cases dwindle to a trickle, because editors love talking about their opponents, and CRN permits it, but DRN prohibits it.
• 2015: The Focus On Content guideline is rewritten to be "Focus On Behavior".
• 2016: CRP creates a new noticeboard for handling etiquete violations, and also a lightweight mediation forum called WP:Mediation Caballeros
• 2017: Lots of drama and discussion at CRN. No enforcement of improper editor behavior, though, because admin actions continue to be managed within WP:AN and WP:ANI
• 2018 to 2022: Dispute resolution evolves into a mish-mash of confusing, overlapping forums. Some editors recognize this, but don't have the time or authority to fix it.
• 2023: Wikimedia Foundation decides to hire someone for a year restore some sanity to the chaos. They hire S. Z., Jr.
• 2024: S. Z., Jr. collects statistics, performs studies, and collects input from WP community.
• 2025: S. Z., Jr. recommends that the CRN be eliminated and that DRN be revived. It is done.
• 2026: A new editor perceives that there is a void in the dispute resolution field, and - rather than enhance the existing Dispute Resolution project - creates a new project to fill the void.
• 2027 to 2040 - The cycle repeats.

… at least, I think I have a time machine. Maybe it was all a dream? [The above is intended to be humorous :-) ]. --Noleander (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Please do not disrupt the space-time continuum to make a point. ;-) — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm assuming the purpose of the project is to deal with personality disputes. Any content disputes would go to DRN. Right now, WP:WQA is defunct and many long time disputes are not appropriate for ANI (unless we are trying to cause more drama) nor are they so cut and dry as to justify a RFC/U. Just as WP:Third opinion offers a light weight way for the community to help resolve problems, this seems to have the same potential for individual conflicts where the admin boards are not the proper solution. As far as charters are concerned, I'm not aware that any Project requires the approval of any committee in order to exist. (See WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy) As long as the Project stays within the expected norms of any Project, and the goal is to help fellow editors avoid the admin boards if possible, then it is not only a good idea, but it would be 100% in line with the goals of administrating at Wikipedia, that is to handle the problem at the lowest possible level. This would be 100% community level, with no authority or sanctions, but instead a way to explore ways for people to get along. This is no different than many of us do already, but it provides a neutral ground to do it in. I'm not sure what the exact end game will be, but there is room (and a need) for a place for fellow editors to discuss conflicts before they rise to the level that requires admin intervention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, content dispute would be referred to DR/N. This project focuses on editor behavior with each other. It is not a forum to continue a fight, create drama, or continue the conflict.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Noleander makes a very good point with his "Report from the Future!", especially the "Editors choose CRN instead of DRN because CRN will permit discussion of the other editors' wicked behavior." bit. Take a look at the Adolph Hitler case. Progress is being made on article content, but only because I am playing Whac-A-Mole suppressing them making accusations against each other (some of them far worse than others, of course). I was sort of assuming that if there was a forum where they could do that it would reduce it at DRN, but it did not occur to me that they might just abandon DRN if another noticeboard gave them what at least some of them so desperately crave. We can discuss the idea of a behavior noticeboard, but we really need to think about Noleander's argument before we actually turn anything on. --Guy Macon (talk)

Speculation with misinterpreted information is not an argument. This project seems to have hit a nerve of what if it replaces ____________(fill in the blank).

I should have a Google Hangout call with Amadscientist later, but if I understand that this project is intended to be some sort of WQA replacement, then I am very worried and would strongly oppose the idea. I don't think that's what it's intended to be (I am still not clear on the aims of the project, so that's what I will be finding out later. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 20:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Just got back, and haven't had time to look into the video portion of the idea. But I should note that I have stated this isn't a replacement for WQA.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I think Focus On Content is the greatest thing since sliced bread. When editors are prohibted from discussing behavior (as happens in DRN) great progress is made. Forcing editors into a 100% content venue like DRN can be a transformative experience for combative editors. Conversely, giving them a venue to continue venting about behavior just enables their bad conduct. Forums that address behavior issues (like WQA) end up promoting drama and accomplishing ... nothing. But for some reason everyone wants to create behavior-oriented forums. Not sure why. --Noleander (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I think Noleander is right. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I think Noleander is basing his arguments on a number of false premises. The main one is that the project will enable bad conduct. I disagree with that but mainly because its a non argument. Ever venue seems to attract bad behavior in just giving people a venue to express themselves.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. Sort out conduct issues between yourselves on a talk page. Many conduct issues are a result of a content dispute that's gotten out of hand. If it's just editors causing trouble for the sake of causing trouble, it should either be addressed by an RFC/U or AN. I don't see how having the same discussion on a noticeboard between two editors is any better than having it on their user talk page. Conduct noticeboards just create drama, and most discussions (like at WQA) turn into poo-flinging matches. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 20:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The project will sort out a number of these issues, such as the best venue for any real discussion between conflicted editors, whether that be here, on another subpage or their own talk page. Below we have started discussing ideas such as a conflict incubation page where editors can continue the discussion with volunteers encouraging ways to avoid continuing a fight. This would not be a location to discuss content however as we are not concerned with content here and would simply direct editors to the proper content venue. Lets se...how many content venues are there? How many conflict venues do we have? Seems to me that we can at least take a good look at things and see what needs to be done.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

There is always the possibility that this project will not need to add any additional major subpages and this can be a simple discussion page of ideas, suggestions and encouragement to resolve conflicts quickly. Possibilities seem to make a lot of people nervous. I don't know why that is, but there ya go.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I, too, am supportive of brainstorming. If this effort had been created as a subproject of the existing DR project, I would be supportive of it. The problem with a new project that is a peer of the DR project is that it dilutes WP's limited resources. Say there is a new editor that wants to help out: they flip a coin between DR project and CP project, and choose the CP project. That is one less editor working under the DR umbrella. It is human nature to overlook efforts created by others; everyone (myself included) wants to rebuild things from scratch "my way". But that is not best for the overall WP community. We don't have an employer who can tell us "knock off that duplication: consolidate!". We have to tell that to ourselves. I would support keeping this project (as a brainstorming effort) if it were moved to be a subproject (subpage) under the existing DR project. --Noleander (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the best argument to make. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and our resources are not so limited to make that even close to being a concern. Your argument against this project is noted but has had no effect on my firm belief that it is an appropriate use of project space and is supported by enough editors to satisfy a standard for community support. I can't help wondering if now some are just nervous that this might become more used than the other project. I don't even wish to reply to that.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• I want to add one more note: this isn't a noticeboard. Noticeboards require community authorization. This is a Wikiproject. I don't think there is a clearly defined structure yet, and Amadscientist has set this up as a project to coordinate with WP:WER. The key is simply to not overstep the authority. We do lose a great number of editors due to conflicts that are not so much about content as one editor feels like someone else is dismissing them or simply being rude. This project has no authority to offer ultimatums, it could simply provide neutral ground. An article talk page isn't appropriate since these problems are often bigger than one article. The talk page of either editor isn't appropriate, as there should't be a "home team". Often, I've talked with editors on my talk page in the same manner, just discussed, get them to agree or simply calm down. Often, just talking it out works. Sometimes, no amount of talking will do and you just want to get them to agree to avoid each other. It shouldn't be seen as a board, but as a way to AVOID the boards, as fellow editors helping each other. There is a risk of drama, like with any venue you discuss personality conflict, which is why the system needs to develop. Realistically, if there is a risk of drama here, that drama would just be playing out on someone's talk page, so you aren't creating it. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't, I have no idea and no dog in this hunt, but I think the concept is worth exploring. WQA didn't work, but neither does ANI for minor personality clashes. THAT is a place that tends to make small problems bigger. We should encourage novel ideas and solutions, and be open minded, and try to be part of the solution. Just saying "it won't work" is easy but not exactly brave or bold. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
• I really like this idea. WP has been obsessed with DR process for years now, and nobody is filling in the blanks on its practice. That's actually kind of huge. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Don't knock it!
• I don't understand why we have to oppose every new idea without even giving it a chance. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 16:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone is being forced to oppose anything, the purpose of this RFC is to clarify how this is intended to work, not to make people oppose it altogether. Every time I open an RFC I seem to end up being accused of being able to practice mind control. I wish, it sure would make things easier around here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't directly referring to you. In fact, at the time I made that comment, I'm not sure that I even knew that you had opened the RfC. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 23:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

*Zombie voice* "Beeblebrox commands me...." *slaps own face-snaps out of it*--Amadscientist (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolving conflicts by making use of the fact that on Wikipedia you can travel back in time

I mentioned this possibility a long time ago during the climate change ArbCom case. Suppose that you have a number of editors who frequently are in conflict with each other on a limited number of pages. Then because we preserve the entire history of the pages, one can copy old versions of the relevant pages to some conflict resolution workshop area, and then ask the disputants to start editing from there. This allows one to start over from e.g. a time before the conflict started. One can also re-run heated disputes, try to give the involved editors instructions on how to avoid problems and see if re-running an old argument leads to a better outcome etc. etc. Count Iblis (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Would that not make the editors feel as if they have to rehash old disputes? If the issue is strictly a content dispute we would want to encourage the use of the DR/N-RFC process. If this is about a continuing conflict after a content resolution, would this not encourage re-opening the original wound? I still like this idea in some form though. A conflict incubation page perhaps, where editors have an opportunity to take their conduct and conflict discussions away from the article that it began at to keep the talk pages flowing and uninterrupted. Thanks Iblis. There is some potential even if I don't necessarily agree entirely on the concept I think there is something there to consider.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I think (both from real world experience and my experience here on Wikipedia), that the reason why some people tend to get into conflicts, is because they are not good at keeping a legitimate discussion from straying off course and degenerating into exchange of insults etc.. There are often many examples from the editing history of a talk page where one can see how a discussion that is in principle ok. to have, strays off course. Then at Arbitration these are used as evidence against some of editors, so it is used in a passive way to passs judgement on people. I suggest making active use of this. Just go back at the time when everything was still ok. and then ask the involved people to start arguing from that point onward, but now they should do their best to stay on topic.

We then don't care primarily if that discussion is useful for editing Wikipedia, instead we should teach people how they can have very strong disagreements, and still avoid such disagreements from becoming personal. We just observe everyone and give them feedback on what they are doing right and wrong, give instructions on how to avoid problems and then we start again. If they do better, we can take another starting point (this doesn't necessarily have to be a historic one, we can invent something) and then see if they can stay out of trouble there too.

The dispute resolution system, AN/I and ArbCom system we have, tend to simply accept that certain people are not suitable to be active in certain areas, and then we impose topic bans, or interaction bans. But then these people never learn how to change themselves, they are simply told to stay away from the problem areas. Of course, we do have to keep problem editors away from the areas where they cause problems, but that doesn't mean that while they are under some (topic) ban, they can't on a voluntary basis engage in conflict resolution. Count Iblis (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)