Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Responding to a failure to discuss

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Guy Macon (talk | contribs) at 00:56, 5 June 2014 (→Suggested addition to deal with FORUM threads: Indent.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The following section seems to be indicating that the article talk page must be used and seems to go against DR/N policy that discussion may take place on the editor talk pages as well:

# Ask for discussion at the article talk page: Say what you're wanting to do, why you're wanting to do it, and give your sources. Do it at the article talk page, preferably in a new section entitled "Request for discussion", not at the other editor's user talk page. Only discuss the edit and do not say a word about the other editor, himself. Not about his motives, his biases, his conflicts of interest, his skills, his habits, his competence, his POV, his POV-pushing, nothing at all, period. Do not use profanity or insults. If you've already asked, but included any of that, see step 1, above, clean it up and apologize and ask again, nicely this time. Here at Wikipedia we discuss edits, not editors. In discussing the edit be crystal-clear but brief. If you can't say what you want to do in a paragraph no longer than this one, then you should seriously consider breaking it down into smaller chunks if possible. If you want to include a draft of what you want to do, that's a great idea and it can be a little longer, but in no case create a wall-o-text.

  1. Immediately put a note on the other editor's user talk page asking him to come to the article to discuss the matter: I recommend using the talkback template for this, rather than using a custom-written note.[1] Put the following code in a new section entitled "Talkback [[Article name]]" on his user talk page:

    {{Talkback|Talk:Article name#Section title|ts=~~~~~}}~~~~

Would this not be better if written to reflect that without an emphasis on location?--Mark 16:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Miller:: First, I didn't mean to ignore you; I somehow missed that you had posted here until just now. Second, I agree that the location stuff is a bit of a distraction, but the gold standard for discussion about article content is to discuss it at the article talk page. Since this procedure is designed to put the person using it in the best, most angelic, light I think that it's useful to focus the discussion there. Moreover, it also makes the application to a sysop less complicated for the sysop to puzzle out, thus making it more likely that he'll take action. What do you think? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TransporterMan, I would say that what you state is very much in line with the thinking of the general community and that there is also no real mention in DR that engaging on an editors talk page is at all a good idea. I really think that DR/N should no longer accept discussion from talk pages as part of any extensive discussion. it seems this is an area that could use some improvement.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested addition to deal with FORUM threads

Hi, I suggest the following addition

Overview
To put yourself in that position:
Your hands must be clean.
You must articulate in tangible detail a specific content change you would like to see.


The inspiration for this suggestion provides an example of applicability. This was/is a GishGallop thread of many words that is currently serving as a rationale for holding a DRN case open.

In my view, DRN should not aide and abet disruptive forum postings by erroneously rewarding the forum post with "extensive discussion" credibility, no matter how many words were uttered in the forum postings.

Courtesy ping to involved volunteer --- Guy Macon (talk · contribs)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we are throwing out our basic principle of discussing article content instead of user conduct, do I have your permission to take the blocked IP editor's word for it and label your comments and being disruptive and his as being productive? After all, you are asking me to take your word for it that your comments have been productive and his comments have been not only disruptive but so disruptive that they don't count as comments at all. Either that or you are asking me to use my own judgement on a matter of user conduct. I prefer to leave all user conduct issues to the Administrators.
I would also add that dispute resolution is not a "reward" to be withheld because of disruptive behavior on some other page. The basic principle behind our extensive discussion rule is to require those editors who never bothered trying to talk it out on the article talk page to go there and try, and to come back and refile if that doesn't work. I am not going to close this and send it back to the article talk page when I know that doing that has zero chance of resolving the dispute.
You seem to have already decided that DRN cannot possibly resolve this dispute and that we shouldn't even try. You have sparred with the IP on the article talk page, but you have never done so in an environment where he isn't allowed to talk about your behavior and you are not allowed to talk about his behavior, so how do you know that DRN won't work?
And BTW, the IP did articulate a specific content change he would like to see. He edited the article. By definition, what he changed in that edit is what he wants changed. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the IP did articulate a specific content change he would like to see. He edited the article. By definition, what he changed in that edit is what he wants changed." True, the IP preformed the B in BRD. I performed the R in BRD. HOWEVER the IP then gishgalloped all over the talk page without actually engaging in D specifically related to his B. My evidence of this is to invite anyone to swim thru that thread looking for a clear articulation of desired content change and supporting reasoning instead of rambling behavior complaints and generalized topic discussion. That is not "extensive discussion" of any proposed content change and does not open the door to DRN. But by inviting him in anyway, his GishGallop forum-ing is being rewarded. If we back way up, one problem here is the abundance of diverse tweaks all bundled together. The best way you can help, Guy, is to persaude the IP to talk about each one of the diverse tweaks, and the reasoning for each tweak, separately. If the IP will agree to do that, your job will (probably) be done. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I usually do -- focus on one thing at a time. In my experience, if I can get all parties to look at one suggested change, explore why there is a dispute about it, and follow our content guidelines, the rest of the suggested edits are agreed upon rather quickly. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Why? Because a talkback discourages a response there, rather than at the article talk page. This is a close call. It looks better if you leave a nice, coureous very brief custom note, but you do not want to have the discussion occur there: his good faith duty to discuss is to discuss at the article talk page and failing to do it there makes him look somewhat worse. Whichever way you choose to do it, do watch his talk page. If he responds there and not at the article talk page, try this: Copy his response, including his signature and timestamp, from his talk page to the article talk page, put your response there, and at his user talk page respond with, "I've copied your response to the article talk page and have responded there. I hope you don't mind, but I'd like to keep all discussion about this article on the article talk page."
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Responding_to_a_failure_to_discuss&oldid=611609323"