Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Dispute resolution

Formatting

A 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Audit Subcommittee RfC

There'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)[reply]

Why was original material archived?

I 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)[reply]

Archived per [[1]] and WP:BOLD. Gerardw (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That's fine, except the original thread. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion

Seems 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)[reply]

Agree 100% with AGK--Cailil ^talk 22:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I hinted as much at the outset. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

YADRDIADP

Yet Another Dispute Resolution Discussion In A Different Place Gerardw (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stalled RFC.

This 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)[reply]

What is "the next stage of the process?" Gerardw (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The next stage of the resolving-problems-with-dispute-resolution process is the Circle Of Death. bobrayner (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Communications

See now Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution. Peter jackson (talk) 11:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]