维基百科:爭議解決布告板/志工服務

快捷方式

您好，我們非常感謝您有興趣加入幫助解決爭議的行列。爭議解決布告板（DRN）是中文維基百科上進行爭議解決的非正式階段之一。爭議解決布告板主旨在於協助解决編輯者間關於內容的爭議。雖然在爭議解決布告板達成的解決方案沒有正式的約束力，但經常被視為對後續討論及對爭議條目進行行動時的重要參考依據。

這個頁面是針對希望在DRN幫助解決爭議的志工所設立的指南。志工沒有正式的要求，因此您可以隨時開始參與討論，任何編輯者都可以對任何討論發表意見。雖然在參與爭議討論前不必先將您加入爭議解決志工名單，但建議您這樣做，這對於DRN機器人監控各個案件的狀態會很有幫助。

如何開始

在下面的DRN志工列表加入您的使用者名稱——DRN機器人會利用這個名單來進行一些日常管理工作。雖然不是必要條件，但如果您願意的話，也可以在我們的「社交」頁面上加入您的個人資訊。

記得將Template:DRN case status加入您的監視清單，這樣您就可以持續追蹤DRN所列出的爭議。這個頁面會顯示所有目前在DRN的案件，並由機器人每半小時更新一次。它會按照案件的經過時長進行排序，並列出自志工最後一次編輯以來所經過的時長，以及目前爭議的狀態。

從DRN案件列表中選擇一個案件——該列表位於WP:DRN頁面的頂部。您可以選擇一個標記為“新案件”的議題，這意味著目前尚無志願者參與該案件。在可能的情況下，優先考慮較早提交的案件，但無論案件的新舊如何，選擇一個感興趣且看起來不太複雜的案件來開始您的DRN工作也是不錯的選擇。只要您未參與該案件，且與案件或相關方沒有重大利益衝突，就可以在任何新案件上進行服務。

複習並詳閱維基百科的方針和指引——志工應當熟悉相關的維基百科方針與指引，尤其是WP:爭議解決指引、WP:可供查證、WP:列明來源、WP:中立的觀點（特別是WP:UNDUE）以及WP:生者傳記。

如果您不想承擔特定案件的志工角色，您可以經由在DRN案件中加入評論或參與DRN討論頁來提供協助。此外，您還可以協助一些維護工作，例如確保爭端中的所有相關各方都已在其討論頁上收到通知。更有經驗的用戶還可以進行程序性結案、處理格式修復以及更正頁面連結和用戶名。

自願承擔DRN案件

摘要

找到一個沒有DRN志願者負責的案件。
檢查是否已有足夠的前期討論，並確保爭端沒有在其他頁面或內容或行為爭端解決場所活躍。如果沒有討論或爭端仍在其他地方活躍，您可能需要根據這些指示結案。
確認該案件中列出的每個參與者是否已在其用戶討論頁上收到通知。如果沒有，您可以手動在他們的討論頁上添加此模板：{{subst:Template:DRN-notice}}.
如果所有各方都已發表開場評論，您可以在案件的討論部分介紹自己是DRN志工。
根據以下建議引導討論。
案件結束後，根據結果將案件標記為“失敗”、“已解決”或“已關閉”。

通知案件參與者

The filing party is responsible for notifying all participants on their user talk page but the filing party may need to be reminded. Additional reminders may be needed as the case progresses. To remind participants that a DRN case needs their input, post the {{DRN participation ping}} template on their user talk page as follows:

== DRN case reminder ==
{{subst:DRN participation ping}}

Refer to the DRN participation ping template page for options and details.

開始

不要開啟案件，除非您相當確定線上或線下的其他事務不會妨礙您每天或幾乎每天都能持續關注該案件，直到其解決或關閉。請記住，雖然DRN案件的通常處理時間為自提交之日起14天，但有時可能會持續更長時間。
Locate a case marked 'new' (see below).

– New.

Make sure the filing party has notified all the listed parties using the {{subst:drn-notice|name of DRN case}} template.
Make sure that there has been extensive talk page discussion about the content matter in dispute (discounting all discussion about procedure and conduct); close the case for lack of discussion if there has not. Remember that while we prefer discussion at the article talk page that discussion on user talk pages or elsewhere will usually suffice.
Change the cases status by replacing the word "new" with the word "open" in the case status template at the top of the case filing.
Add a comment in the case's Discussion section introducing yourself as a DRN volunteer.
Be alert for excessive or personalized opening comments and gently correct these tendencies by alerting the participant(s) in a patient and friendly manner.
Review the case information and any related talk page discussions.
Make sure all the necessary information has been provided by the filing party. Make corrections or request additional information as needed.
Disallow discussion by participants until all parties have made opening comments.
The DRN bot will automatically change the case's status in the summary box at the top of the DRN page after you have manually changed the case status in the case status template. It will also list you as having made the last volunteer edit if your name is listed on the list of volunteers. The case status bar will then look like this:

– Discussion in progress.

進行

See also WP:Consensus

As a volunteer, your role is to assist the participants in obtaining a mutually satisfactory resolution of their underlying content dispute. Some suggestions:

Be cordial and welcoming. Many editors involved in DRN cases are new to Wikipedia and may not be fully aware of all of its policies and guidelines.

If you're not going to give attention to the case at least once a day, let the parties know your schedule.

Be neutral and professional. Being opinionated or flippant may undermine your credibility as a neutral volunteer. If you have a strong opinion about the underlying topic in a case it may be better to allow another volunteer handle the case.

No particular method of dispute resolution is required. Mediation was used by the now-defunct Mediation Committee, but other methods such as opinion-giving, such as is done at Third Opinion, may be appropriate.

Guide the discussion by referencing Wikipedia policies and guidelines and avoid making value judgments and getting caught up in the content dispute. When policies and guidelines give a clear resolution, it is fine to advance them (but be sure that you're right before doing so); when they are unclear or their application to the particular facts of the case is unclear, then propose them for discussion and help to narrow the conversation to the most relevant points or issues.

Avoid becoming a co-party by directly editing the article under discussion.

Discourage resolutions which violate Wikipedia's content policies such as WP:Verifiablity or WP:Biographies of living persons.

If you have had past dealings with the article or editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response, its best to leave the case to other, uninvolved, DRN volunteers. If someone objects to your involvement in a case, you should either withdraw from the case or initiate a discussion on the DRN talk page so the community can discuss the objection.

When starting a case, focus on asking questions rather than making pronouncements.

Make sure that everyone agrees to the details of the dispute. Sometimes, a simple misunderstanding can be the source of the problem.

Consensus does not mean that all the parties are fully satisfied with the resolution, it merely means that all the parties can live with the resolution as that is the nature of compromise.

If the parties are making progress without your assistance, avoid the temptation to comment and sidetrack their progress.

In complex cases, imposing a structure (such as a step-by-step process) may be useful to avoid chaos and circular discussions.

If you find that real world or other matters have come up which may prevent you from giving regular attention to the case please do not simply abandon it or let it hang while you seek to resolve those matters. Let the parties know and either get their consent to whatever attention you can give to the case or resign from the case and put a note on the DRN talk page asking for another volunteer to take over the case.

參與者各方的基本規則

In contentious disputes, establishing ground rules may help structure the discussion. Such ground rules might include:

Keeping comments focused on the issue at hand.
Insisting on civility and no personal attacks. DRN volunteers may want to 'collapse' comments that personalize the discussion. An explanation for the collapse and a gentle warning will help communicate to the participants your ground rules and expectations. If a volunteer's collapse or removal of content is reverted by a participant, the volunteer should not revert the reversion. If the collapse or warning is disputed then the DRN volunteer may want to discuss and explain the issue further on the participant's talk page.
Let the participants know that resolution often comes only through compromise which is an integral part of the Wikipedia collaborative process.
When there are multiple issues suggest that they be discussed one at a time. Discussion that veers off course may be 'collapsed' by the volunteer to keep the discussion productive and on track.
DRN is not a formal dispute resolution process, and does not result in binding decisions. Nevertheless, participants should generally agree that they will abide by the outcome of the case.

關閉

Volunteers should close their cases when they have concluded. A case may be closed as 'resolved' or 'failed' (or 'closed' when there is no clear outcome). To close a case, first set the case status to either "resolved" or "failed" or "closed" within the {{DR case status}} template. Second, collapse the entire case by enclosing it in an archive box with a comment explaining the reasons for the closure. Example:

== History of Russia case ==
{{DR case status|closed}}
{{DRN archive top|reason=Reason for closing. ~~~~}}
{{drn filing editor|Wiki-editor|00:00, 0 August 2013 (UTC)}}
Filing request and discussion.
{{DRN archive bottom}}

There are three ways to close a case: "resolved", "failed" and "closed". It is also important to remove the {{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|0123456789}} line when closing a thread so that the bot can archive the closed discussion.

已解決

When all involved parties have agreed on a resolution in an unambiguous manner, the case filing may be closed and the DRN case status template changed to "resolved":

{{DR case status|resolved}}

The case status bar should then look like this:

- Dispute resolved successfully.

失敗

If it becomes apparent that resolution is not possible at this time, mark the case status as "failed". Advise the parties to continue discussing the issue in the article talk page, and/or pursue other methods of dispute resolution such as Request for Comment or WP:ANI. To close a case as "failed" set the DRN case status template as follows:

{{DR case status|failed}}

The case status bar will look like this after closed:

– Closed as failed.

程序關閉

Some cases never reach a clear degree of success or failure and may qualify for a 'general' close. For example the involved parties may lose interest during the dispute resolution process etc. In some instances a case may need to be closed preemptively even before a DRN volunteer accepts the case for discussion. Reasons for a preemptive close may include:

Parties have not had extensive discussion on an article or user talk page.
The case is currently being discussed in a Request For Comment or in a Wikipedia noticeboard such as WP:ANI, WP:AN, or WP:RSN.
There is already a consensus at another venue such as WP:RFC, and the DRN case has been filed by an editor who is unhappy with the outcome (see WP:Forum shopping).
Involved parties have indicated they are not willing to participate (or they are blocked etc.).
The dispute was resolved on the article talk page while the case was awaiting dispute resolution.
The dispute is primarily about user conduct not content.

To close a case, edit the DRN case section and place the word "closed" in the case status template, and archive the case with the {{DRN archive top}} template, as shown in this example:

== Moon landing conspiracy case==
{{DR case status|closed}}
{{DRN archive top|reason=The parties have not had extensive discussion of the issue on a talk page. ~~~~}}
{{drn filing editor|Wiki-editor|00:00, 0 August 2013 (UTC)}}
Filing request and discussion.
{{DRN archive bottom}}

After closing the case status box will look like this:

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

In closing cases that are not ready for dispute resolution here, volunteers should consider whether the requesting editor is very new and would benefit from some instruction as to the ways of Wikipedia. Volunteers should consider whether we need to try to explain to new editors what talk pages are for and guide them to the relevant areas for discussion.

爭議解決志工列表