Wikipedia:Difficult DRN Cases

This is a discussion of disputes that an experienced DRN volunteer can see, when they are filed, are not likely to be resolved at DRN, and some characteristics of these disputes. This discussion is not in any of the rules of DRN, but volunteers will use their judgment and experience to decide what cases to handle. We try to handle any case that we might be able to handle.

There is a question to the filing editor: How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Sometimes it appears simply on looking at the answer that the editor is in the wrong place. If the filing editor says that they want someone to tell the other editor to do X, or to stop doing Y, it is unlikely that the case will respond to DRN. If there is a content dispute, it will not be resolved by having someone tell the other editor to stop editing. If there is a conduct dispute, an administrator may tell the other editor to stop doing B, but DRN is not a noticeboard to request administrator assistance for conduct. WP:ANI probably is the right place, if the filing editor has not also engaged in questionable conduct. Arbitration Enforcement may be the conduct forum if Discretionary Sanctions are in effect.

If the filing editor refers to vandalism in the description of the dispute, DRN is not the right place. Either there really has been vandalism, which should be reported at the vandalism noticeboard, or the other editor is yelling vandalism to "win" a dispute. The right place to yell vandalism to win a dispute is: Nowhere. If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing long enough to know what is not vandalism.

Sometimes it is clear by looking at a case description that the case is a Yes-No or A-B issue. In such cases, it is a good idea to ask a neutral editor to help, but the help will normally not be acting as a mediator, because the job of a mediator is to facilitate compromise. Sometimes what looks like a yes-no can be split, but not always. If the question is whether to include or delete a paragraph, a compromise might be to include one sentence from the paragraph. However, sometimes the volunteer and the filing editor conclude that a Request for Comments is a better option, and the volunteer will help develop the RFC.

Occasionally the answer given to how we can help is something like, "Decide who is right". That isn't what DRN is for. If there are only two editors, a Third Opinion may be available. If there is a policy question, we will tell you what the policy is, but that probably isn't what you wanted.

If a case has a relatively large or very large number of editors listed, there may be either (or both) of two problems. First, the case may turn out to be a one-against-many case. Mediation or moderated discussion is not normally useful in such cases. The volunteer is not likely to persuade the one editor to agree with the others, and is not likely to persuade the other editors to agree with the one editor. Two better ways to handle one-against-many are an RFC, or for the one editor to accept that they are in the minority. Second, if a case has a very large number of editors, moderated discussion is likely to be chaotic. An RFC may be a better idea.

There have occasionally been questions where there have been one or more RFCs that have resulted in No Consensus, and then an editor files a request for moderated discussion at DRN, listing the large number of participants in the RFC as editors. If an RFC resulted in No Consensus, it is likely that the community is split, and moderated discussion will not result in a consensus. Moderators are not magicians and are not judges. Sometimes No Consensus is an accurate summary of community opinion. If a volunteer wants to try to resolve such a case, they are welcome to try, but volunteers are also welcome not to try to resolve such cases.

Some cases involve areas that have had battleground editing, sometimes because they are areas of the world that have been actual battlegrounds, such as India and Pakistan, and the Balkans. Either the Arbitration Committee or the Wikipedia community may have imposed special rules known as discretionary sanctions that allow quick action against disruptive editors who push unbalanced points of view. The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is a good place to resolve such disputes, and so avoid restarting World War One or any other war, but it is only a good place to resolve disputes if the editors agree that it is a content dispute. If there are persistent conduct issues, it may be difficult to resolve the content. Volunteers are welcome to try to moderate such disputes, but may be cautious if conduct issues appear to be significant. If you are asking DRN to help resolve such a dispute, it would be a good idea to ask whether you are willing to focus only on content.

These are some of the reasons why the volunteers at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard may not choose to conduct a dispute by moderated discussion, and may either decline the case or advise that it be resolved in some other way.