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

Revision as of 18:48, 4 September 2012

Revision as of 18:49, 4 September 2012

Line 62:

'''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''': A [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dispute resolution 2|Requests for comment]] will be opened soon to discuss the future of dispute resolution. In the meantime, doDo you think that the [[Wikipedia:Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard|Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard]] is effective? Should we close or reroute it to the [[WP:DRN|Dispute Resolution Noticeboard]]? Please [[Wikipedia:Dispute_Resolution_Improvement_Project/Discussion|share your views...]]

'''Coming up''': A [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dispute resolution 2|second Request for comment]] will be opened soon to discuss the future of dispute resolution.

'''See Also''': This week's Signpost [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-09-03/Op-ed|opinion piece on dispute resolution]], by Steven Zhang.