维基百科:争议解决布告板/志工服务

快捷方式

您好，我们非常感谢您有兴趣加入帮助解决争议的行列。争议解决布告板（DRN）是中文维基百科上进行争议解决的非正式阶段之一。争议解决布告板主旨在于协助解决编辑者间关于内容的争议。虽然在争议解决布告板达成的解决方案没有正式的约束力，但经常被视为对后续讨论及对争议条目进行行动时的重要参考依据。

这个页面是针对希望在DRN帮助解决争议的志工所设立的指南。志工没有正式的要求，因此您可以随时开始参与讨论，任何编辑者都可以对任何讨论发表意见。虽然在参与争议讨论前不必先将您加入争议解决志工名单，但建议您这样做，这对于DRN机器人监控各个案件的状态会很有帮助。

如何开始

在下面的DRN志工列表加入您的使用者名称——DRN机器人会利用这个名单来进行一些日常管理工作。虽然不是必要条件，但如果您愿意的话，也可以在我们的“社交”页面上加入您的个人资讯。

记得将Template:DRN case status加入您的监视清单，这样您就可以持续追踪DRN所列出的争议。这个页面会显示所有目前在DRN的案件，并由机器人每半小时更新一次。它会按照案件的经过时长进行排序，并列出自志工最后一次编辑以来所经过的时长，以及目前争议的状态。

从DRN案件列表中选择一个案件——该列表位于WP:DRN页面的顶部。您可以选择一个标记为“新案件”的议题，这意味著目前尚无志愿者参与该案件。在可能的情况下，优先考虑较早提交的案件，但无论案件的新旧如何，选择一个感兴趣且看起来不太复杂的案件来开始您的DRN工作也是不错的选择。只要您未参与该案件，且与案件或相关方没有重大利益冲突，就可以在任何新案件上进行服务。

复习并详阅维基百科的方针和指引——志工应当熟悉相关的维基百科方针与指引，尤其是WP:争议解决指引、WP:可供查证、WP:列明来源、WP:中立的观点（特别是WP:UNDUE）以及WP:生者传记。

如果您不想承担特定案件的志工角色，您可以经由在DRN案件中加入评论或参与DRN讨论页来提供协助。此外，您还可以协助一些维护工作，例如确保争端中的所有相关各方都已在其讨论页上收到通知。更有经验的用户还可以进行程序性结案、处理格式修复以及更正页面连结和用户名。

自愿承担DRN案件

摘要

找到一个没有DRN志愿者负责的案件。
检查是否已有足够的前期讨论，并确保争端没有在其他页面或内容或行为争端解决场所活跃。如果没有讨论或争端仍在其他地方活跃，您可能需要根据这些指示结案。
确认该案件中列出的每个参与者是否已在其用户讨论页上收到通知。如果没有，您可以手动在他们的讨论页上添加此模板：{{subst:Template:DRN-notice}}.
如果所有各方都已发表开场评论，您可以在案件的讨论部分介绍自己是DRN志工。
根据以下建议引导讨论。
案件结束后，根据结果将案件标记为“失败”、“已解决”或“已关闭”。

通知案件参与者

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.

开始

不要开启案件，除非您相当确定线上或线下的其他事务不会妨碍您每天或几乎每天都能持续关注该案件，直到其解决或关闭。请记住，虽然DRN案件的通常处理时间为自提交之日起14天，但有时可能会持续更长时间。
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.

进行

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.

参与者各方的基本规则

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.

关闭

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.

已解决

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.

失败

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.

程序关闭

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.

争议解决志工列表