Wikipedia talk:Responding to a failure to discuss

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconEssays Low‑impact
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
LowThis page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
Note icon
The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Place of discussion?[edit]

The following section seems to be indicating that the article talk page must be used and seems to go against DR/N policy that discussion may take place on the editor talk pages as well:

# Ask for discussion at the article talk page: Say what you're wanting to do, why you're wanting to do it, and give your sources. Do it at the article talk page, preferably in a new section entitled "Request for discussion", not at the other editor's user talk page. Only discuss the edit and do not say a word about the other editor, himself. Not about his motives, his biases, his conflicts of interest, his skills, his habits, his competence, his POV, his POV-pushing, nothing at all, period. Do not use profanity or insults. If you've already asked, but included any of that, see step 1, above, clean it up and apologize and ask again, nicely this time. Here at Wikipedia we discuss edits, not editors. In discussing the edit be crystal-clear but brief. If you can't say what you want to do in a paragraph no longer than this one, then you should seriously consider breaking it down into smaller chunks if possible. If you want to include a draft of what you want to do, that's a great idea and it can be a little longer, but in no case create a wall-o-text.

  1. Immediately put a note on the other editor's user talk page asking him to come to the article to discuss the matter: I recommend using the talkback template for this, rather than using a custom-written note.[1] Put the following code in a new section entitled "Talkback [[Article name]]" on his user talk page:

    {{Talkback|Talk:Article name#Section title|ts=~~~~~}}~~~~

Would this not be better if written to reflect that without an emphasis on location?--Mark 16:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Why? Because a talkback discourages a response there, rather than at the article talk page. This is a close call. It looks better if you leave a nice, coureous very brief custom note, but you do not want to have the discussion occur there: his good faith duty to discuss is to discuss at the article talk page and failing to do it there makes him look somewhat worse. Whichever way you choose to do it, do watch his talk page. If he responds there and not at the article talk page, try this: Copy his response, including his signature and timestamp, from his talk page to the article talk page, put your response there, and at his user talk page respond with, "I've copied your response to the article talk page and have responded there. I hope you don't mind, but I'd like to keep all discussion about this article on the article talk page."
@Mark Miller:: First, I didn't mean to ignore you; I somehow missed that you had posted here until just now. Second, I agree that the location stuff is a bit of a distraction, but the gold standard for discussion about article content is to discuss it at the article talk page. Since this procedure is designed to put the person using it in the best, most angelic, light I think that it's useful to focus the discussion there. Moreover, it also makes the application to a sysop less complicated for the sysop to puzzle out, thus making it more likely that he'll take action. What do you think? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TransporterMan, I would say that what you state is very much in line with the thinking of the general community and that there is also no real mention in DR that engaging on an editors talk page is at all a good idea. I really think that DR/N should no longer accept discussion from talk pages as part of any extensive discussion. it seems this is an area that could use some improvement.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested addition to deal with FORUM threads[edit]

Hi, I suggest the following addition

Overview
To put yourself in that position:
Your hands must be clean.
You must articulate in tangible detail a specific content change you would like to see.


The inspiration for this suggestion provides an example of applicability. This was/is a GishGallop thread of many words that is currently serving as a rationale for holding a DRN case open.

In my view, DRN should not aide and abet disruptive forum postings by erroneously rewarding the forum post with "extensive discussion" credibility, no matter how many words were uttered in the forum postings.

Courtesy ping to involved volunteer --- Guy Macon (talk · contribs)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we are throwing out our basic principle of discussing article content instead of user conduct, do I have your permission to take the blocked IP editor's word for it and label your comments and being disruptive and his as being productive? After all, you are asking me to take your word for it that your comments have been productive and his comments have been not only disruptive but so disruptive that they don't count as comments at all. Either that or you are asking me to use my own judgement on a matter of user conduct. I prefer to leave all user conduct issues to the Administrators.
I would also add that dispute resolution is not a "reward" to be withheld because of disruptive behavior on some other page. The basic principle behind our extensive discussion rule is to require those editors who never bothered trying to talk it out on the article talk page to go there and try, and to come back and refile if that doesn't work. I am not going to close this and send it back to the article talk page when I know that doing that has zero chance of resolving the dispute.
You seem to have already decided that DRN cannot possibly resolve this dispute and that we shouldn't even try. You have sparred with the IP on the article talk page, but you have never done so in an environment where he isn't allowed to talk about your behavior and you are not allowed to talk about his behavior, so how do you know that DRN won't work?
And BTW, the IP did articulate a specific content change he would like to see. He edited the article. By definition, what he changed in that edit is what he wants changed. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the IP did articulate a specific content change he would like to see. He edited the article. By definition, what he changed in that edit is what he wants changed." True, the IP preformed the B in BRD. I performed the R in BRD. HOWEVER the IP then gishgalloped all over the talk page without actually engaging in D specifically related to his B. My evidence of this is to invite anyone to swim thru that thread looking for a clear articulation of desired content change and supporting reasoning instead of rambling behavior complaints and generalized topic discussion. That is not "extensive discussion" of any proposed content change and does not open the door to DRN. But by inviting him in anyway, his GishGallop forum-ing is being rewarded. If we back way up, one problem here is the abundance of diverse tweaks all bundled together. The best way you can help, Guy, is to persaude the IP to talk about each one of the diverse tweaks, and the reasoning for each tweak, separately. If the IP will agree to do that, your job will (probably) be done. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I usually do -- focus on one thing at a time. In my experience, if I can get all parties to look at one suggested change, explore why there is a dispute about it, and follow our content guidelines, the rest of the suggested edits are agreed upon rather quickly. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@NewsAndEventsGuy and Guy Macon: This is already covered in step #3, "Ask for discussion at the article talk page: Say what you're wanting to do, why you're wanting to do it, and give your sources. Do it at the article talk page... In discussing the edit be crystal-clear but brief. If you can't say what you want to do in a paragraph no longer than this one, then you should seriously consider breaking it down into smaller chunks if possible. If you want to include a draft of what you want to do, that's a great idea and it can be a little longer, but in no case create a wall-o-text." Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Number 3 is ambiguos because it just says "discuss the matter"; this suggestion addresses the editor whose "discussion of the matter" is a generalized pontification on the subject, divorced from any reference to the ed's desired text changes. When such eds see "discuss the matter" they all to frequently wander off into generalized pontification-land. I'm advocating tweaking the bullet list in some fashion to make it crystal clear the "matter" to be discussed are the tangible proposals for tweaking articles. Saying something on this point in just a few words everywhere we say "discuss the matter" would go a long way to reducing forum/soap postings, at least after the first round of them. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC) Strike that. I may revisit later. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@TransporterMan: Are we as DRN volunteers to evaluate whether someone is being sufficiently crystal-clear, sufficiently brief, writes in sufficiently small chunks, etc. and deny the person access to DRN if they fail the test? That's what NewsAndEventsGuy wants us to do. I say that if someone makes a good-faith effort to discuss why they want a change -- even if they suck at it and post a wall of text -- we should accept the DRN case and require them to be crystal-clear, brief, etc. in the filing. Closing a case and sending it back to the talk page is for cases where we think that there is a reasonable chance that talk-page discussion will help. Closing a case and sending it back to the talk page is not for punishing behavioral problems. We can require someone to refrain from posting a wall of text in their DRN comment, but it isn't our place to deny them access to DRN because they posted a wall-of-text on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, I admire your desire to respect the talk page clod who pontificates about the subject while telling himself he's discussing an edit. That's not sarcasm, but honest - I admire your desire to AGF and respect that fellow.

Problem is the way you are expressing that respect does not respect other editors. We get named. We're a part. We have to pay attention (or risk being seen as collaboration asses by refusing to participate). Under the TPG we don't have to do any of that for forum postings. We shouldn't get suckered into dealing with that crap just because of a venue change. So by letting such eds take advantage of DRN before they have said something both coherent and actionable, you are disrespecting the other involved eds.

Best of both worlds solution - how to respect everybody (A) Speedy close respects others, (B) do the same work you would have done in DRN in one-on-one with the talk page clod. Once they can articulate reasoning for a desired change that you as a DRN volunteer understand, send them back to the article talk page to have the "extensive discussion". Every editor named in the recent Global warming conspiracy theory filing has a track record of working thru issues w/o need for outside assistance. You can easily work with the talk page ignoramus outside of DRN (while helping eds make their initial clear statement) without DRN proceedings taking up everyone else's braincells. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who told you that you have to "pay attention or risk being seen as collaboration asses by refusing to participate?" It clearly states at the top of the DRN page that "You are not required to participate", and plenty of editors choose to not participate for various reasons. Of course if you refuse to discuss it on the article talk page and at DRN and someone complains, your reasons for not collaborating had better be good, but that is for an administrator to decide, not a DRN volunteer. We only deal with article content, never user conduct.
I am very uncomfortable with the idea of "do the same work you would have done in DRN in one-on-one with the talk page clod". With no way of enforcing rules such as limiting your statement to roughly 2000 characters, waiting until all parties have weighed in before opening the discussion and not allowing editors to talk about each other, the chances of a successful resolution plummet. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In what I just described, the second appearance at article talk will be focused on a proposal for changing article content rather than a subject matter discourse. If consensus is not achieved, the matter might bubble back to DRN but this time after meaningful "extensive discussion". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've remarked on this over at the poll at the DRN talk page. Let me refer y'all to my response there, rather than repeating it here. IMHO, the much, much greater problem for Wikipedia is editors who will not engage in discussion at all rather than those who gush or create walls of text or engage in TP-as-forum practices. Indeed, in those gushers/walls/forums there is usually some grain of genuine content discussion. DR can winnow that out and press them to get to the point and WP has processes for addressing the rest which is a conduct issue in which DRN and other content DR should not become involved in my opinion. I understand the case for the additional restriction, but there's also a case for eliminating the no-discussion rule altogether and having DR take on all comers, even those who have only engaged in a EW without even using edit comments (in short: at least opening up DR to those disputes puts those editors in the position of either discussing or identifying themselves as total trolls). Finally, could I ask that if this discussion is going to continue that it be moved back to the DRN talk page, or better, the DR talk page since the topic affects all forms of mediated content DR, not just DRN? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See you there. If the V-pump takes on the Q whether DRN should be open to no discussion at all, I will oppose that with all I got. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Me, too. I was just pointing out that a case can be made for it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just edited "Process" section[edit]

In case anyone wants to discuss the edit, feel free to let me know on this talk page. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea and thanks for improving the look of the coding sections. Good job! Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Step "Wait"[edit]

I am rather uncomfortable with the advice to wait for a week. I have 10K pages on my watchlist and don't have pet peeves so that I would keep them in the "Favorite" toolbar of the browser. Most probably I will forget about it in a week. Since I would honestly believe that my edit was correct, I feel uncomfortable with both waiting that long and with the chance of forgetting, and thus indirectly degrading wikipedia. I would write more arguments.

Therefore I would suggest to limit the waiting time to 72 h after each notice. As is said, this is not life and death, and my version, if not debated, is just as good; I have the same piece of claim for WP:NORUSH, as the Other Party. If the OP comes in 144 hours and reverts without a mum, this would tell me something, right? In this respect, I would also suggest:

  • The invitation to the discussion saying extremely clear that you are ready to hear out OP's arguments, and without any revert war, too. (I would mention this here because quite a few time I've seen every exchange in talk accompanied with the revert).
  • Once the OP engages in the dialog, then full WP:NORUSH kicks in, i.e., I would allow the mentioned week between the responses, because I see a good will.

Staszek Lem (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Staszek Lem: I understand the practical problem, and frankly as I said in the footnote I'm fine with waiting 72 hours after the other editor's first edit after your notice has been placed on his/her talkpage. But, again, the point here is to try to make yourself look utterly reasonable and squeaky clean while clearly illustrating the other party's failure to be collegial. This is just advice, too, so anyone can do as they wish, but you need to be able to prove that they've both had a chance to see your note (i.e. by having edited the encyclopedia after you posted the note on their talk page) and had a reasonable time to respond. If the responding editor were always you or me or some other editor who is online almost every day of course 72 hours would be enough, but if it's an editor who only edits intermittently or only once every few days then their "get around to it" time could be longer. Since most editors sent to this essay are newcomers, I just didn't want to have to try to teach that nuance. Best regards and thanks for the comment and sorry about my slow response, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

content[edit]

@Bastun: I've asked twice that you please discuss this matter. I'm going to go ahead and make the change I've described above. If you revert without responding here, then I'm going to have to file a complaint against you at ANI for disruptive editing. — Railsparks (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Railsparks: I don't think you meant to put the above notice here. It should probably have gone on the other editor's talk page. This page is for discussing this essay. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my gafRailsparks (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Explicit refusal to discuss[edit]

I have been trying to follow the advice in this essay for some time, but two editors I interact regularly with have begun to game it. As one recently documented here, they simply choose not to engage one-on-one. So after I follow the advice here by doing everything suggested to stimulate discussion, I finally revert after weeks of silence, only to be immediately re-reverted. Since it's just one re-revert in weeks and months, there is nothing that anyone at WP:ANI or similar can do. So I am at a loss re how to deal with these type of editors. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI?[edit]

As to No. 7 of the process, is ANI the correct forum for this? I think maybe this should advise that the user will be taken to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but if someone follows the instructions here then considerable time could have passed between the reverts being contended to be an edit war and I’m afraid that such a complaint might get short shrift there unless the filing party (and many editors using this technique are not experienced) explain themselves very carefully. When I originally wrote this, I researched it at ANI and found some support in the archives there, so put it that way. I’m certainly open to better advice, however (and of course no longer OWN this essay). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalise all words in section headers?[edit]

Seems like a REALLY minor issue, but should we capitalize section headers? (i.e. "Good Luck" instead of "Good luck")? It's a small fix, but I'd prefer not to get scrutinized over it. InvadingInvader (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find your answer here: MOS:SECTIONCAPS. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Got it now InvadingInvader (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"I disagree (full stop)"[edit]

This hasn't happened to me but what would this constitute as? Would it be enough to start dispute resolution or would it constitute a failure to discuss? JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 05:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking it would depend on what came before. If it is the first thing the opposing editor says then I'd be inclined to follow up by asking for the reason(s) for the disagreement. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for replying! That would make sense to me. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 06:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Responding_to_a_failure_to_discuss&oldid=1151002090"