Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Dispute resolution
Formatting
editA long overdue discussion, kudos to the initiator(s). Would anyone object to introducing separate sections for Arbitration, Noticeboards, RfCs etc. before unstructured discussion gets unmanageable? Skomorokh 17:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not at all - go for it. Structure always helps in RFCs, and is often hard to achieve. That's partly why I expect a second stage RFC, to allow a more focussed discussion after this initial perhaps more brainstormy RFC. Rd232 talk 19:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Audit Subcommittee RfC
editThere's a Request for Coment at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee#Request for comments on the Audit Subcommittee which could be of interest. PhilKnight (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Why was original material archived?
editI don't think we are supposed to be archiving all of the discussions under this dispute resolution RfC. Either close this and start a new RFC or leave the original material. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Archived per [[1]] and WP:BOLD. Gerardw (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- But that's not what I meant. You see up the page, my remark from January about a second stage RFC - that's what I meant. Rd232 talk 15:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Didn't mean to imply that's exactly what you meant. I had found the discussion annoying long for reviewing, editing, and when I saw the WQA note that someone else felt that way, I just did something. WP:IAR and all that. If someone really doesn't like it, they'll just revert it (BRD), right? Gerardw (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- But that's not what I meant. You see up the page, my remark from January about a second stage RFC - that's what I meant. Rd232 talk 15:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Since nobody else wants to do something let's try collapsing the top. If you don't like that solution please implement another one. Thanks.Gerardw (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's fine, except the original thread. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
This discussion
editSeems too broad in its scope, not very well-structured, and poorly-publicised. I wonder if we ought to work on that before proceeding with the actual discussion. AGK [•] 22:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Agree 100% with AGK--Cailil talk 22:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, I hinted as much at the outset. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Agree. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've tried to introduce some more structure to the discussion, and I've added a list of phases we could work through if this discussion manages to get past the brainstorming stage. Everybody should feel free to amend/improve my work. AGK [•] 19:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- It seems like a good place to throw out ideas and get an idea if there's support to bring it up to next level = assumedly Village pump. But I don't think anything "decided" here should be seen as some sort of endorsement for any ideas brought else where. I'll take a more thorough look, but nothing grabbed me as being all that critical in couple glances I've taken in past. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
YADRDIADP
editYet Another Dispute Resolution Discussion In A Different PlaceGerardw (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Stalled RFC.
editThis RFC has stalled. Might it be time to move to the next stage of the process? Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 11:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- What is "the next stage of the process?" Gerardw (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- The next stage of the resolving-problems-with-dispute-resolution process is the Circle Of Death. bobrayner (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Communications
editSee now Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution. Peter jackson (talk) 11:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)