Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Improvement Project/Newsletter: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:07, 4 September 2012

Revision as of 00:25, 4 September 2012

Line 63:

The results at DRN showed some encouraging stats - a reduction of 67% to first response times, 60% reduction in discussion times, 25% reduction in thread size, an average of 2.85 volunteers to a thread up from 1.5 and a success rate of over 64%. The amount of volunteers decreased by 20%; however, its common for volunteers at DRN to come and go.

'''The WQA close proposal''' is [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Closing_Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance|still receiving comments]]. Initial response was generally sympathetic to concerns about WQA's ineffectiveness, but there was widespread backlash against routeing all WQA disputes to AN/I. The number one complaint about WQA was that it just doesn't work, and further that it dilutes the DR pipeline and confuses editors with too many options. Several editors noted that too much blaming goes on there, sometimes even ''increasing'' the drama. A common point was that without the admin teeth of AN/I, WQA does little to discourage our most uncivil editors. Opponents to the close noted that WQA at least gets the mess of conduct disputes off of article talk pages and is a lighterweight alternative to RFC/U. Also mentioned was that the threat of AN/I delivered at WQA was sometimes enough. Consensus seemed to form around [[WP:3O|third opinions (3O) as a suitable replacement for WQA given our current options.

'''For Discussion''': Is the [[Wikipedia:Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard|Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard]] effective? Should we close or reroute it to the [[WP:DRN|Dispute Resolution Noticeboard]]? Please [[Wikipedia:Dispute_Resolution_Improvement_Project/Discussion|share your views...]]