Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This is not the place to request dispute resolution.
This page is only for discussing how the Dispute resolution noticeboard is run and operated. Please request dispute resolution at the noticeboard. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dispute resolution noticeboard page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
This FAQ page may be developed or changed over time.
|
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Incorrectly closing Pizza_effect dispute
You have closed this dispute because "I haven't informed the other editor" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Pizza_effect
I have, and I wrote as much in the comment. I replied to one of his comment on the talk page, here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pizza_effect#c-Gotofritz-20251204135000-DonBeroni-20251204134200
Now if I file a dispute it redirects to the one you have incorrectly closed. Thanks, Robert
Newly opened 'Pointer (computer programming)' dispute
This caught my eye, as something I remember seeing disputes about many years ago on some forum or other. As an outsider with no wish to engage in this rather silly argument, I'll not comment on the project page, but someone needs to point out to ~2025-40797-91 that labelling a talk page thread 'RfC' doesn't make it one. Wikipedia has a formal RfC process designed to resolve disputes by asking a neutral question, and by seeking input from uninvolved contributors through notifications. The so-called 'RfC' on Talk:Pointer (computer programming) did neither. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- User:AndyTheGrump - I have closed the dispute, not because of the RFC that is not an RFC, but because the filing editor has not been discussing, and has made personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Followup query on Luc Besson DRN submission
Hi Robert McClenon,
Was my DRN notice request denied specifically because of the adjoining sockpuppet noticeboard submission or because an involved user was suspected of foul play barring the fact that there was another relevant noticeboard request?
I'm still new, and I want to know if I asked for assistance in the wrong location/time or if my notice was properly placed but problematic in another way.
Thank you in advance! Phoeromones (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- User:Phoeromones - I declined your request only because of the sockpuppet investigation. DRN does not handle any dispute that is also pending in another forum. You did not ask for assistance at the wrong place or the wrong time, because you were not involved in the SPI. It was the wrong combination of time and place because there was also the SPI. If Royge 12 is cleared, you can request DRN again, if the dispute isn't also pending in a third location. You didn't make a mistake. Asking for DRN is a better idea than either sockpuppetry or edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- The sockpuppet case has been closed, with an IP ban result. The notice should be updated. Despressso (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
Unfamiliar with DRN
@Robert McClenon: and others who have been moderating DRN for some time: As I am sure you can tell, I am new to and completely unfamiliar with WP:DRN. I don't know the rules and not all that eager to spend a lot of time learning them and trying this new process, when the normal process of editing seems fine to me. Having been on Wikipedia for 17.5 years, never once have I participated in DRN or read a DRN case, even though I had heard about it as an option to resolve disputes.
For me, I don't know what it adds to helping resolve disagreements--except confusion--because the content discussion leaves or forks from the talk age and other editors can't see it and may not be able to participate, or realize they should. Like me, they may not want to get involved in a protracted DRN case. This is one reason in the current case, I'd rather stick with talk page discussion, which I am very familiar.
Perhaps DRN, it can be useful. I'm sure it has a purpose. But I don't really understand it. What I do know is that it seems to move the dispute from the talk page of the article to a place that editors of the article can't see, and as I have said repeatedly, that really bothers me. In fact, ever though I have DRN on my watchlist, I find it much harder to follow than a talk page discussion, because DRN has multiple disputes going on simultaneously. I don't understand why we can't just handle disputes at the talk page--even if it is moderated there, so to speak.
Also, I don't understand why disputes have to have parties that don't involve and invite/include EVERY potentially interested editor at the article for the question of the dispute. If, for example, only two editors come to a dispute, then it seems unfair that those two editors can form their own consensus and decide what content should be in the article--while other editors are shut out of the discussion if they weren't aware of the DRN or don't choose to engage it.
I don't know if decisions agreed to at DRN are somehow binding or just advisory as to what editors might want to do at the talk page or edits to the article.
It's all rather confusing, and I don't understand the advantage over the regular process at the talk age. Can you give me any good examples of how DRN was helpful? Maybe I am missing something. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Possible Reply to User:David Tornheim
I will try to reply to the questions by User:David Tornheim. I see two questions. The first is why discussions are conducted at DRN rather than on the article talk page. The second is whether the decisions made at DRN are binding.
I don't recall any discussion of whether moderated discussions should be conducted on the article talk page. Discussions have always been at the noticeboard because discussions at all of the content noticeboards, such as the Reliable Source Noticeboard, biographies of living persons noticeboard, and neutral point of view noticeboard are conducted at the noticeboard rather than on the article talk page. David Tornheim raises an interesting point about taking a discussion away from the article talk page to a less visible location. I think of the content noticeboards, such as DRN, RSN, BLPN, and NPOVN, as being more visible than the article talk page, because each noticeboard has its regular editors who follow the noticeboard. The situation in which some of the editors in a content dispute go to DRN and others do not go to DRN is unusual, and is one that I have tried to avoid. I do not open a dispute if I see that the filing editor has listed less than all of the editors. I try to avoid the situation in which less than all of the editors are in the discussion. Do you have a concern either that your input or the input of another editor is being overlooked?
The question about decisions at DRN is easier to answer. When a dispute is resolved at DRN, it is only binding on the editors who are involved. Binding decisions following DRN are made by RFC, in which case it is the RFC that establishes consensus.
Have I answered at least your second question? Are there any other questions that I haven't answered? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I agree that a number of major notice boards, such as RS/N, NPOV, AN/I, A/N, FRINGE and some others have a much bigger following than a typical article talk page. Given that I have never paid attention to DRN, my sense was there is not the same kind of audience. I did check the data: DRN gets around 200 pageviews/day with 1,300 watchers. RS/N, 2-3x as much. AN/I, 3.5k pageviews/day and 9k watchers.. The article talk page for the DRN I am in has 1/10th the number of watchers and pageviews as DRN.
- So it's not quite as obscure as I originally thought. However, I notice no other independent editors--except the moderator(s)--have shown up to the discussion on the subject I am involved in--unlike all the other noticeboards, where significant input is sought. My guess is that watchers and pageviews are more focused on the particular dispute they came to discuss and tend to only comment there.
- As for the issue of involving all parties from the talk page, that has indeed been a concern all along. I don't know if this is the best place to explain my concern. Please let me know where to discuss: (1) here (2) at the dispute itself (3) somewhere else? My sense is that (2) would be the place to bring that up.
- Thanks again for your thoughtful response.--David Tornheim (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Added Comments
User:David Tornheim wrote: Also, I don't understand why disputes have to have parties that don't involve and invite/include EVERY potentially interested editor at the article for the question of the dispute.
Neither do I. If I have opened any disputes that have less than all of the parties, it has probably been a mistake.
You ask why disputes come to DRN rather than simply being continued at the article talk page. They sometimes come to DRN because the editors realize that they are getting nowhere with continued back-and-forth discussion. That is one of the reasons why I specify that the moderator asks the questions and the editors address the moderator and the community, and why I remind the editors that the purpose of discussion is to improve the article, and ask them what changes each of them wants to make to the article.
I think that the military-industrial complex discussion is a case where the editors who thought that moderated discussion was premature were right, but that should be discussed in the DRN, not here. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2026 (UTC)