Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Archiving

MiszaBot II (talk · contribs) is occasionally having lapses over the dispute resolution noticeboard. Leaving some collapsed threads and archiving others. So, we will continue to have MiszaBot II in place but because of tedious process of archiving long separate threads manually, I have also implemented ClueBot III (talk · contribs) which will take over in MiszaBot II's place. ClueBot III will only archive the thread when it detects a special string of words in the thread. For that reason, when you see a thread that's been closed for over 24 hours and it has not yet been archived by MiszaBot II add this anywhere on the thread: <!--ARCHIVENOW--> anywhere on the thread. I've already put the coding that's necessary in place. And hopefully, that'll do the job. Do not place the string on any thread that is still open, active and uncollapsed! Best regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 01:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I think they implemented DoNotArchiveNow with ClueBot III now. I'm not sure if it's been fully-documented yet though. Let's switch over to ClueBot and see if we can get this feature working. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
After I implemented the coding for ClueBot in conjugation with MiszaBot II and I used the string <!--ARCHIVENOW--> on the threads that were older than 24h, MiszaBot II somehow picked up that code and transferred the threads over to the archiving pages. That's quite bizarre. Maybe leaving both codes for MiszaBot and ClueBot simultaneously is a good idea rather than switching back and forth? Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 12:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

editor bias

Wrong page, wrong venue, being handled on user talk page and article talk page Dennis Brown (talk) 11:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

request that editor TreacherousWays be removed from editing article on The Citadel. He inappropriately tries to dictate what information should be included in the article to include adding a new section on a questionable sexual harassment survey, also has an obsession about including references to shannon faulkner. Reverts deletions without explantation or discussion, tone and demeanor are heavy handed and not conducive to a civil dialogue between writer and editor. My experience so far with wikipedia editors is that they tend to be very dictatorial not helpful.Bob80q (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I see you called him a Nazi on the article talk page of The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina. You also started the conversation with "First, who decided to make it a seperate section? This is not a decision to be made by editors and it is NOT YOUR JOB TO DICTATE WHAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN AN ARTICLE." which indicates you don't understand how Wikipedia works. Your entire tone on that talk page was uncivil, bordering on personal attacks (ie: "Nazi"). And you failed to notify User:TreacherousWays that you were coming here (I did for you). Oh, and this is the wrong venue to get someone blocked from editing. That would be WP:ANI. All and all, your editing there seems more than a little disruptive. A boomerang would be appropriate here. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, I forgot to add, this is the TALK PAGE of dispute resolution. Not even the right page to file a dispute. Please read the instructions on the tops of pages next time. This page is for improving the resolution system, not to file disputes. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dealing with premature disputes

I just closed a request for resolution here because there had been no discussion on the article talk page. I've noticed that a few have been closed in this way, which may not necessarily lead to resolution of the dispute. I get the feeling that users who post here for help are not likely to initiation dispute resolution on the talk page themselves. Perhaps, then, when we reject a premature dispute, we could also post a message on the article's talk page suggesting a discussion and offering to facilitate it (like this). I think that would help resolve disputes before they need more formal resolution here and prevent issues being ignored because the DRN was used prematurely. What do you think? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a prerequisite to have talk page discussion somewhere even on user talk pages. But people need to discuss because negotiation is a part of the dispute resolution process and you can't just have a third party mediator force discussion because it has to be voluntary. Best regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 18:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
You might clarify that on the top of the project page. It's confusing, doubly so for newbies. Here are a few things that it DOES say:
  • (This) is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion in other venues on Wikipedia. (Article and user talk pages are venues)
  • (This) is intended as a first stop for all disputes on Wikipedia, so if you are not sure what to do with your dispute, please post it here.
  • I found nowhere where it says that this is for after they tried the article/user talk pages
  • I found nowhere where it recommends trying the article or user talk page first.
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
"It is not for disputes which have been carried out only through edit summaries or which have not received substantial discussion on a talk page." It's pretty straightforward if editors actually read the header. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 20:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
To deal with your last point first, with things like this, I am in favour of blinding clarity. We are all seasoned Wikipedians - we know to read everything on a page before jumping in. New or newish users (who make up a fair proportion of disputants here) may not have that mentality. That is not to say that they shouldn't (of course, they should read all the instructions), but they don't. Thus, clearer notices might be useful.
And to your initial point. I completely agree that there should be a talk page discussion before a dispute comes here. However, there will be some circumstances in which the users involved are really unlikely to do that (as they might be new or newish editors). In some cases, they just won't know how to start a talk page discussion (what to say, more than technicalities). I don't believe that every prematurely listed dispute needs additional support, but I do think that some will. If it leads to easier or quicker dispute resolution, that can only be a good thing. What do others think? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I think whenever closing a thread, you should always leave a message to the parties as to why it was closed and what the next step should be on their talk page, because they may not even see the obvious header template that hangs over the closed discussion that says, "If you have any questions about why this thread was closed, please click the 'show' button first and read the comment left by the closer. If your questions are still not answered, please inquire on the closer's talk page." The only reasonable option left is to make a notice on the top of the page that maybe looks like this:
Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 21:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with your first point - whenever a dispute is closed prematurely, the person who requested it (and perhaps anyone who contributed) should be notified, as you say. I think it might then be up to the mediator's discretion as to whether additional support is required in resolving the dispute on the talk page. For the sake of clarity, I am proposing this as a good practice, rather than additional policy/regulation/guidelines at DRN. I'm not sure what could be best done about the second issue. The notice we have covers everything we need, but probably won't be read by anyone in a hurry to list their dispute. Another notice telling them to read the notices will probably be ignored (though I'm not certain on what we could do to resolve the issue). this might be a case of just having to deal with the fact that some people don't read instructions. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Sadly, there are consequences for not reading instructions. On the second point, over time, dispute resolution volunteers develop a 'handbag' of notes on how to deal with disputants. It's at the mediator's own discretion to go above and beyond what is expected and I think that going 'above and beyond' and helping the disputants after a thread is filed, should become the norm because it encourages disputants to come back to the dispute resolution process rather than just a closure and "No. Wrong forum." Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 21:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the problems we have here, and with DR in general, is that there's not enough of us. The more time, effort, or complexity you require of participants, the fewer there will be, even if you make the acquisition of the knowledge of what's required of them reasonably easy to acquire. For purposes of this discussion, I'd expand "require" to also include "suggest so strongly that if you fail to do it other participants will pester remind you about it." The only time I get concerned about a no-discussion quick close is in those instances where the listing editor is a newcomer and they've unsuccessfully tried to get the opposing editor(s) to discuss the matter; in those situations, I'll sometimes go an extra mile, but that should always be entirely up to the mediator/clerk. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC) PS: I'll go the extra mile in those situations because coming to the correct answer to the musical question, "What can one do, other than edit war, if the other editor refuses to discuss, especially since all the content DR forums require discussion?" requires a degree of knowledge of WP procedure and policy that is beyond the ken of most newcomers. — TM 21:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I tend to categorize editing into 2 categories:
  • Content editing
  • Conduct editing
People who don't discuss and repeatedly revert fall under the conduct editing category and really isn't building the encyclopedia. How do we deal with this? I feel this is beyond the regular practices of discussion in which the ultimate goal is to reach consensus. How do we deal with editors who try to derail the consensus building exercise? We call this disruptive editing.
I'm sure most of you know my style of dealing with situations like this. I feel simply that there is no better way to deal with editors who can not discuss matters. If people are reverting/editing back to their own version without discussion, what else do you categorize this, than other edit warring? If one tries their hardest to discuss with the warrior, you can not extend grace indefinitely.
Editors need to know in order for people to help them, they need to help those who try to help them. In the case of WP:DRN, the minimum expectation for a file to to make it easy for us to understand the situation. Some situations are complex. Please make it easy for us to understand your situation!Curb Chain (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you, Curb Chain. But, just leaving it there and letting the editors to continue to edit war after closing the dispute, is in no way going to resolve the dispute. However, a stern warning on their talk page (such as using {{uw-3rr}}) will. Though, conduct editing (such as mass spamming) is inappropriate, at the very least a message should be left to warn them not to continue those edits. If they continue to do those edits, then report them to the necessary noticeboard. Simple above and beyond action. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 22:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I tend to classify disputes by which of two things is the main underlying driver. One is (an) underlying POV objective, the other is primarily psychological. To use the technical term, a pissing war. Stubbornness, wanting to be considered the one who was right, or the usual psychological degeneration into a fight. Of course the other factor can be present in either one. North8000 (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

As always, use common sense when dealing with disputants. Nothing's set in stone. So, try to be courteous to good faith editors. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 00:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned before, we need to be as accommodating here as possible. If a dispute is opened that hasn't been discussed on the talk page, as long as it's not obvious disruption or trolling, suggest that they discuss the issue on the talk page first. Give them some self-mediation tips. But we need to do this with care. Perception of dispute resolution isn't that great from what I've observed, and we are in a way the gatekeepers to DRN, which is in some ways the entry to dispute resolution. Let's just be careful, eh? Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 00:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I think we can be accommodating as long as disputing parties follow ground rules.Curb Chain (talk) 01:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The rules we have at DRN aren't policy, they aren't even guidelines, they're just suggestions and in no way are they set in stone. We should give leeway for new editors because let's face it... when we were new editors we didn't know how things worked nor did we want to read long instructions. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 01:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Blind comment. OK - I admit I haven't read this thread. I am not familiar with this board. I'm only stopping by due to an out of process thread I saw (with a "hint hint"), and thought I'd make a comment. I'd say deal with it the same way AC does. Not sure if you guys call them "clerks" or not - but whoever is moderating the issue - simply move, or remove. Let the folks who post concerns know what you've done. And thus you establish precedent moving forward. Just a passing thought .. carry on. — Ched :  ?  18:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a note

This is just a note that I changed the header of this noticeboard slightly so that it has more of an emphasis on its informal aspects. I just changed "cases" → "threads" and added "This is an informal board..." It seems that editors treat this like ArbCom. Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 23:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

My first DRN

I have to say, that the DRN process has been frustrating to me. I know there have been quite a few OWS related disputes I have been named in. Sorry. Can't really be helped if someone disputes something that others are discussing as they need to be informed. Sometimes I have taken part in the discussion and many times I just keep my mouth shut. I think if DRN were added to the DR process page and made with some emphasis it could attract more people to discuss their issues. I also think there should be a minimum time to discuss once a dispute has been accepted as valid for the DRN process. Say...no less than 48 hrs to give editors time to respond and editors can be certain the discussion will not close unless a consensus is clearly reached by all parties. Otherwise there is no sense in having a DRN process. Editors who have filed the dispute and editors envolved get a set time to respond to even begin the discussion and a limit of perhaps 72 hrs if an active DRN is ungoing and good faith discussion is still happening, even if not entirely productive. Some of these may already be in place. But I didn't do the survey thing so I thought I would comment now after filing my first DRN. Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 07:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I wonder if including a spot in the template for adding a new discussion with something like "Proposal 1" etc. might be helpful in making it clear what are proposals for a compromise.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes a dispute does not involve a proposal and sometimes the filer does not follow instructions so the DRN report becomes more of a way for the filer to advertise their grievance which is not the purpose of the board.Curb Chain (talk) 10:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Has this been discussed before and is there any way to discourage this. If I am part of that problem please let me know and I will stop further DR discussion. It wasn't my idea to come here but I was determined since the threat to come here was made by the other editor I felt I might as well file one as I had the dispute and wanted to get clarification. I got it...but I am still stuck with a DR that will not close due to another issue not of my filing. I am not here to advertise a grievance.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
DRN is a place where editors can come to if they feel that another party has not argued their point sufficiently. I'm not sure about what you are asking. Did the DRN solve your problem? If not you can recind-the-file/recuse-from-further-discussion and a clerk will close it for neutrality.Curb Chain (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
That's the thing...it did resolve my problem and I thought that was it and placed the agreed on prose and reference that was hammered out with assistance and yet now we seem to be moving on to the disputes the other editor has in different areas. I'll see how it plays out, but my original dispute was resolved unless this is like some way to discuss his issue as part of my dispute in order for him not to rescind (sounds so much better than renege) his part of the compromise that seemed to be set.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
That sounds like a productive discussion to me. Is there anything wrong with his discussion of his concerns?Curb Chain (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes. For some reason he doesn't wish to justify the material. He has not yet done so and keeps asking me to re-explain my position for exclusion. If he doesn't want to discuss the material himself and just post a version and keep telling me to explain my position with out supporting his own, the dicussion becomes a brick wall.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Then you can point this out. What does the consensus say? Your position or his?Curb Chain (talk) 06:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Its a dead tie - no consensus. Two editors against and have removed the material and two editors for who have attempted to return the material.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd try a RfC at this point, if DRN is still not working. A tip for a good RfC is phrasing the question so people can input a simple "Yes" "No" to the question. If you spend the time to make the question as direct and simple as possible, you will get the best results.Curb Chain (talk) 08:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
RFCs have been tried, and those along with this DRN have become repeats of what goes on at the article talk page all along -- a back-and-forth between the involved editors (well, at least three of them; the fourth tends to abstain when there's no reverting to be done), only transplanted to different sections and venues. We could try another RFC with each side putting forth a complete draft; it might work, for now. Though it won't really solve the over-arcing issue at this article.
The lack of any serious participation there (and here) aside from the four of us makes decisions by consensus nearly impossible. Not to mention, the behavior of my two opponents at the article has been very problematic -- though they claim the same of me/us, so that discussion doesn't go anywhere either -- it's my word against theirs, who you gonna believe? That is, unless you examine the history and talk page over a fairly long period. This behavior (and content) issue is spread out over such a stretch as to be vague and uninteresting enough that uninvolved people aren't compelled to get involved. Suffice it to say, the phrase "BRD isn't policy" rears its ugly head repeatedly, even though consensus has shown that to be a pure technicality (as in, it appears to be universally accepted that one can not violate BRD without violating policy, even though most people don't actual want the policy tag there).
This drafting of sections on the talk page has become the only way to get anywhere, and after that, discussions descend into meticulous, excruciating legal battles over every single word someone changes. This is where I lose interest. Articles need to be able to change with relative ease. They cry OR until they're satisfied that we're using only the most technically-correct of synonyms to describe source material, and that's not what I'm at Wikipedia to do. I like to write articles, not directly translate sources according to some wholly subjective standard of accuracy to satisfy someone's POV paranoia.
I have no doubt that my opponent here will claim that I haven't made an adequate attempt at discussion because my arguments are "against policy", or that we're "using policy to get our way", or other such nonsense (yeah he's said those very things). This "You're wrong because I'm absolutely certain of it" attitude has dominated. Save it. We simply disagree in our interpretations of how to apply policy to this situation. Your opponents don't eat babies just because they disagree with you.
To get a little less vague: Amadscientist and The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous are constantly concerned about language and content that might defend or justify the Occupy Wall Street movement is some undue way. That's what this ongoing dispute is about. Do with that what you will, I don't know if it's useful to know.
If anyone has any suggestions on how to proceed, we're all ears. Although I'm fairly tired of it at this point. Discussions that don't dissolve into individual word-choosing bicker-fests might still see my participation though.
Sorry for the wall of text, but it's been a long time coming. Read it or don't. Equazcion (talk) 09:31, 30 Apr 2012 (UTC)
As a neutral clerk here, I have a suggestion to bring it up to a higher resolution rung, unfortunately, with the lack of other opinions, I feel that the most satisfying solution is go with the 2 editors who are in agreement.Curb Chain (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Which two would that be? There are 2 pairs of agreeing editors here. That's the problem. If you mean the two who tend to participate the most in the discussion, it would be myself and BeCritical. The other two are Amadscientist and AKA, with AKA being more the revert warrior. You can see this demonstrated at the article talk page. Equazcion (talk) 18:42, 30 Apr 2012 (UTC)
If he continues to revert without discussion, he should be reported.Curb Chain (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk Page: Maybe User Talk Pages Can Be Included As Well As One Of Prequesites For Posting On This Noticeboard?

I've been thinking if we should allow disputes that have occurred (exclusively) on a user's talk page. This would open up our purview and allow disputes to have an opportunity to query even though it is not on an article's/template's/category's talk page. Good or bad idea?Curb Chain (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess this wouldn't be permissible because simple name calling disputes would get opened here.Curb Chain (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Archive Not Working

Please use Mizra or some bot that works. Threads are not archiving, for example ones which are over a week old.Curb Chain (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Backlog

Hey all, DRN as you can see is a bit backlogged. I realise we're all a bit busy (me especially) but if we could get some of this cleared up that would be fantastic. Regards, Steven Zhang Talk 02:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That is because some threads are not archiving.Curb Chain (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Cleared a few, will look at others later. The ones that aren't archiving have a "DONOTARCHIVETILL" so close em out and remove the tag. I'll see if I can do something tomorrow, but right now I'm trashed. Steven Zhang Talk 13:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Newbie

I have recently been trying my hand at helping out at DRN to seem if it is a good fit for me. Wikipedia has been a big help to me and I want to give something back. After trying to help in a couple of discussions, I think this is something I would like to do on a semi-regular basis.

I am going to ask for advice, but first let me mention where I think I could do better. The first thing is that I have to be more diplomatic. I don't think I am awful, but I could do better. Some of the people coming to these cases are already pretty upset, and other are a bit, shall we say, challenging. So I need to get better at dealing with that. I welcome constructive criticism about this sort of thing, so don't think I will be offended if you tell me I handles something poorly.

The second thing is that I need to get a bit better with the nuts and bolts; things like when to start a new section and what level it should be at, how long to wait before closing something, how to best refer someone who should be at another noticeboard -- that sort of thing. Again, constructive criticism is helpful.

So, if anyone has some advice for me, please jump in. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Guy. Thanks for hanging out here and for doing a lot of good. Sorry many of us haven't been around - we've all been very busy. You're doing good work, my main recommendation would be to read over the background of a dispute to get a better idea of the issue. Always keep calm, and don't be afraid to ask for help if you get stuck. If a dispute has been stale for 3 days, post a reminder message on the thread, and close after five days. If you have any questions don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page or via email at szhang@wikimedia.org. Regards, Steven Zhang Talk 02:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

change "N.B." to something more understandable

When a new issue is created, the template inserts the following: N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election, 2012}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.. I suggest that the "N. B." be eliminated. Many readers, especially if English is a second language, won't know what NB means. Also, NB is almost never necessary in any situation. --Noleander (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed it here. Feel free to revert if incorrect. --Noleander (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that was my British education showing itself. I like your version better. Feel free to change any other parts of the template that don't make any sense, by the way - most of them haven't really been discussed at all. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 08:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Move review

Wikipedia:Move review has been turned on. While it is still listed as proposed, it needs to be given a chance to see if it will work as designed. I'm mentioning this here since it is another option for resolving disputes without admins getting into trouble over WP:WHEEL violations. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning this! I'm glad that it's going ahead, as I think it will be a lot better than bringing disputed requested move discussions here. I saw a suggestion on one of the administrators' noticeboards that a disputed RM close should be brought here, but most of us are neither admins nor have any significant experience closing RMs, so I think we would have had to turn it down. I'll keep the new venue in mind in case anything like this turns up in the future. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 07:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Archiving bot down

Again, just archived 9 12 threads manually. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Updated: TM — 20:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't we have a better system of autoarchive?Curb Chain (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this still a problem? I've been absent from this board for a while, so I haven't been paying attention to the technical things, but if there's still a problem I'll step in and make sure it gets fixed. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 07:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
It appears that the archiving is completely broken. Nothing is getting archived unless it is done manually. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, MiszaBot II is working again now. The problem was that MiszaBot's configuration template began halfway through a line. With most templates this isn't a problem, but in this case MiszaBot reads the page source line by line, and skips any lines that don't start with the template text. ClueBot III may work differently, not too sure about that. By the way, do you want to try archiving using ClueBot III's DoNotArchiveNow feature? It should be working now, and ClueBot will automatically fix links to the archives, something which MiszaBot isn't capable of yet. I haven't tested it out myself, though. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Reverted to old header

The simplified header, which was adopted without discussion, is leaving too many control issues unaddressed. After leaving a conduct warning in this edit I was challenged to justify it. While the old header is more complex, and perhaps could use some streamlining, it covers necessary issues that the simplified header simply does not adequately cover and I have reverted back to it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Describing volunteers

Hi, all. I'm personally very grateful for the work of the regulars who keep this board humming, as is the rest of the community, I'm sure. While I absolutely don't mean to diminish that in any way, I would like to ask that volunteers here refrain from referring to themselves in any way that might be misunderstood as implying any sort of authority beyond that of any other community member.

In particular, I found it confusing to read what Guy wrote, "I am a volunteer Clerk/Mediator here". Although I've been a Wikipedian for quite a while, now, when I first read that I assumed that "Clerk/Mediator" was a community-conferred role or title, since the word "Clerk" is used in that way (exclusively, AFAIK) elsewhere on Wikipedia. I'm sure no one intends it, but without reading the docs for this board, there's no way to know that "volunteer Clerk/Mediator" means exactly the same thing as "volunteer", i.e. no way to know that "Clerk" or "Mediator" aren't community-conferred titles in the way they're being used here. Perhaps just "volunteer" or "dispute resolution volunteer" without the caps, or "volunteer mediator" would be less likely to be misinterpreted. Cordially, --OhioStandard (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. I really had not thought about it - I just used the terminology that was already in use[1] -- but we certainly don't want to mislead folks into thinking we have any special authority. On the other hand, we also do want them to know that we are not someone involved with or even familiar with the dispute. Whatever term we choose, we might want to back it up with a note at the top of the page or perhaps a special help page we can link to. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
@Ohiostandard: This board really is no different from the article's talk page except for that fact it lists disputes in a systematic way. These official "Clerk/Mediator" terms could be done away with.Curb Chain (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I gripe at people all the time for not reading the instructions for this board and now I find that I haven't done so myself. <Chagrin, hoisted upon my own petard.> When this board was first put together, the header referred to folks who work here as "mediator/clerks" and I've presumed that it's been that way ever since. I now discovered that the term was removed in February. Nonetheless, the term is customarily used here (I use "regular mediator/clerk" here, just as I use "I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian" when I give a Third Opinion). To me, it signifies that I am not a participant in the dispute, but am instead a neutral party coming in to help. (I used "I am a neutral in this dispute" in the past, but folks thought that was confusing, so I switched to my current usage. There's a prior discussion on this issue at Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_2#.22Clerk_comment.22.) I disagree, however, that the use of "clerk" in a particular way at any one place here implies community approval. Indeed, the clerks at WP:SPI are appointed only by the other existing clerks, not by the Wikipedia community as a whole, and clerks at WP:ARBCOM are also only at best indirectly appointed by the community in that they are chosen by the Arbitration Committee, which is chosen by the community. Finally, I would note that even at those forums that clerks have no primary authority, but only perform administrative tasks, so there is no implication here that they have any particular authority. I try to use the term "Clerk's note" when performing primarily administrative tasks here and use the traditional term "mediator/clerk" when I'm acting as a neutral. Frankly, I find the term "mediator" more inappropriate than "clerk" because we do things here other than traditional mediation. @Curb Chain & Guy Macon: This board is different than the article talk page because of the intervention of neutral editors who gain their authority from their neutrality. The identification of oneself as such a neutral is indeed a claim to that authority and is valuable for that reason. The last time we discussed this, I offered to start using the following instead of what I've been using, but no one seemed to think it a good idea: (Comment/Administrative note from neutral and uninvolved editor who is experienced in dispute resolution but who does not have any more authority here at this noticeboard or any more authority to advise upon or decide disputes than any other editor here at Wikipedia, who isn't even an administrator, and who indeed has a tendency to overemphasize the role and importance of policy and be something of a Wikilawyer and who is, incidentally, a real lawyer and you may not want to listen to him just on general principles or because you dislike lawyers:) What do you think? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
No I disagree with you. When I comment I expect to be building consensus.Curb Chain (talk) 23:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
@Transporter: I agree that neutrality confers authority, but it's transactional in nature, in my opinion, not in any way positional or personal. That is, the authority neutrality confers is "only as good as your last neutral comment", i.e. it derives only from the strict neutrality of that, not from e.g. one's being a "regular" here, or hitherto uninvolved in any dispute that's brought here.
This isn't an academic or overly nice distinction, as I see it: Two of the most prolific "regulars" in providing ostensibly "uninvolved" opinions at BLPN are ardent and extremely active partisans in many of Wikipedia's political articles, and have been described by others more than a few times as improperly using BLP policy to delete all content critical of their favorite politicians.
My point is not that I think anyone here is similarly biased (I don't) but that merely presenting oneself as a regular on a drama board, in itself, confers no authority whatever. It's the fact of NPOV, evaluated by all concerned on an edit-by-edit basis, that confers authority. ( That's what I mean by saying the authority is "transactional". ) And that's the same exact authority that any editor has, or doesn't, regardless of whether he's a "regular" at a board or not. Obviously, I trust, no one takes this argument as having the least personal application; I'm speaking of the general principle, here. --OhioStandard (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Lowercase is a good idea. "Clerk" seems too much like an ArbCom clerk with official duties. "Mediator" is okay, but too narrow: some volunteers may just offer a "one shot" neutral opinion without mediating. "uninvolved" is not quite right, since they become involved once they comment. Maybe "neutral volunteer" or "dispute resolution volunteer"? The latter (also suggested above by Ohio) seems most accurate & informative. --Noleander (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) This is why I made the {{cue}} template, which you are all welcome to use however you see fit. Maybe we could also write an essay describing the role of the noticeboard volunteers in more detail and link to it from the template? I'm open to suggestions here. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 03:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
@Noleander: 5 sentences, TLDR. — TransporterMan (TALK) 04:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC) [Sorry, just couldn't help myself, Nol ;-) ... <inside joke between TM and Nol>]
:-) I could change two periods to semicolons :-) --Noleander (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, I thought I read it, anyway... :P Maybe it's ok because we usually put the template at the beginning of the post? We can just say that the editor starts out uninvolved and gets increasingly involved as the comment progresses. Or something. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 04:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Grand Poobah?
Fountain guard?
Guardian of the Gates?
Necron?
Dalek Supreme?
Tisroc?
Village idiot?
Barrayaran Imperial Auditor?
Steward of Gondor?
--Guy Macon (talk) 05:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I quite liked Steven Zhang's idea of "masochist". — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 06:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Dang, you guys are funny; reminds me of a Monty Python sketch ( wink, wink, say no more, nudge, nudge, know what I mean? ). Trainsporter Man's small print really put me on the grin, along with Guy's suggestions, although Steven's "masochist" might well be the most apt. Thanks for being willing to take this up without inferring any desire to diminish your collective glory, which all right thinking Wikipedians recognise as a shining beacon of hope and NPOV for all the world. :-) Hyperbole aside, thanks, really, both for your work and for your humility in being able to keep from taking my observation/suggestion personally.
On the substance, I'll just add that I think Strad's {{cue}} template is really helpful. I'd be all in favour of seeing it used at the beginning or end of each post by a volunteer; I think it'd be beneficial for the process to call out every post that way. Alternatively - and I'm just throwing out a top-of-my-head idea, here - it might be helpful to make the first word or two of posts by a dispute resolution volunteer ( yes, I really like that description ) show up in some subtly different color. Nothing garish or bold, mind, which would probably raise objections, but just different enough so readers of a thread could easily distinguish uninvolved commenters from parties to the dispute.
But I've said my piece, now, and I know you "regulars" here can work this out very satisfactorily, that whatever you collectively decide upon will be an appropriate way to address the issue. If you do decide to implement something new, like the subtle colour difference thing, or whatever, I'd just suggest that you try to coordinate that with the regular volunteers at other boards, e.g. WQA, the third-opinion volunteers, & etc. Thank you for taking my concern seriously, and, once again, for your patient and important work, here. If even half our editors were able to exercise anything like the good will and humility in evidence here we'd have a quarter the drama that we do on-wiki now. Or something like that; I was evidently doing something else in school when they taught arithmetic. Best regards, --OhioStandard (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
On re-reading the preceding comments, I see I should probably clarify that I agree with Noleander's observation saying, "uninvolved" is not quite right, since they become involved once they comment. I like the idea of Strad's template, though, the intention, very much. Just my two cents, however; I think this will be addressed most effectively by the consensus of the regular volunteers, here. --OhioStandard (talk) 07:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm perfectly willing to make a new template if that will help things. I like making templates. :) How about a {{Comment by DRN volunteer}} template that outputs (Comment by DRN volunteer)? We should probably revamp the noticeboard guide a bit too, with the bits that relate to involved parties at the top, and the bits that are useful to volunteers at the bottom. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC) EDIT - changed the link colour from grey to the normal blue. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree with this because, speaking for myself, I know that when I comment, I do not necessary try to facilitate a cordial discussion between 2 or more parties. This is implied by WP:NPA. I can contribute to a dispute using my own knowledge and expertise and through this I am building consesnus and contributing to building an encylopedia.Curb Chain (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Whoops, only just saw this. I'm not quite sure what you mean - saying that you are a volunteer at the noticeboard doesn't mean that you have to try and facilitate discussion. You could just be leaving an administrative note, or a request to remove personal attacks, etc. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

My personal take on the while thing is that I don't think prefixing one's comments with "I am a volunteer/clerk/mediator/random user/etc here at DRN..." is necessary, and is the reason why I've almost never done it. It's pretty obvious that those that make comment here are regulars, and the suggestions and comments that we provide to parties who bring disputes here speak for themselves. No need for fancy titles or funky templates, in my opinion. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 13:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes it is better to distinguish between users looking for help and users offering help. I like the idea of a discrete template prefixing the signature of each comment from a DRNV. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Hm, dunno. DRN may change greatly over the coming months, as may some other dispute resolution forums - so these changes may be temporary. I don't really mind either way, but I think the way we conduct ourselves makes it pretty clear that we are the ones offering help. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 14:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Here is what I am currently doing. Comments / criticism welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I'd hoped not to comment further, i.e. that the other regular volunteers here would persuade you, Guy, not to use a title that hasn't been conferred by the community, and that none of the regulars at other boards like WQA or RSN need to contribute effectively. I have no objection to "dispute resolution volunteer" in lower case, as I said, if you feel you have to call yourself something, but I see you've again called yourself a "Mediator", a title I think I've already made clear that I find problematic, along with "Clerk". I suppose we could do an RfC or ask at ANI or something, to see whether the community is okay with your using the titles, but do you really think they're so important that you can't get by without them? --OhioStandard (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree that "mediator" isn't quite right, as usually that implies that the parties have given their consent for you to mediate the discussion. On DRN though, we don't have that consent, even if it might be implicit. In the end, I think Steve has the best point - it's how we conduct ourselves that is the most important indicator of who is giving the help. How about this: we have a trial run of one month where no-one prefixes their comments with anything like "clerk comment", "{{cue}}", or "I am a mediator at this noticeboard", etc., and we see if any problems come up. What do you think? — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Ohiostandard, There is no need to use a hammer when persuasion will do. I just did a search and replace changing "Mediator" to "dispute resolution volunteer" while we discuss this. Talk page discussion should be given a fair chance before escalation to RfC or ANI. Please don't assume that we cannot reach a consensus on this. You might persuade me or I might persuade you.

That being said, you have not yet convinced me. I have no problem dropping the capitalization -- you have a good point on that -- but Wikipedia:Mediation clearly says that "Any Wikipedia editor can act as a mediator to a dispute" and Wikipedia:Mediation is a very good describtion of what a dispute resolution volunteer does. I think that using the following when I first introduce myself...

"I am a volunteer mediator here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes and with the nuts and bolts of opening, closing, and formatting discussions here. We need more volunteers; see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Guide for details."

...adequately addresses your concerns. As I said, I am open to being persuaded otherwise.

"Title" does not imply "Title conferred by the community." I have the title of "Rollbacker", for example, and there was no community discussion involved. I just asked an admin. I also have the somewhat obsolete title of "Reviewer", and I have no idea who gave me that user right - I certainly didn't ask for it.

I am less attached to "clerk", but I like it because it seems like a non-threatening way of conveying a basic fact: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Guide says "There needs to be discussion on a talk page about a dispute before it can be brought here. If there hasn't been any discussion, point this out politely to the participants, and close the thread." the term "clerk" seems like a good description of someone who does that. Of course I could drop it and whenever someone asks "who the hell are you to close my DRN filing???" I could refer them to you for an answer... (Note to the humor impaired; that was a joke).

Because of the above, until they let me use the title of Dalek Supreme, I prefer mediator/clerk, a phrase that TransporterMan has been using for quite a while -- and which was in the instructions at the top of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard until 17 February 2012 -- without anyone showing any indication that they think he is improperly using a title that has been conferred by the community. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

( "Hammer", Guy? I didn't mean an RfC/U, you know, but an RfC. Like this, a perfectly friendly, collegial affair to simply ask for broader input on some issue at a talk page, and listed e.g. in the "policy" category for RfCs, to advertise it. Same reason I thought of ANI, just because it's a central location with a lot of traffic, not to try to get you in trouble or anything dumb like that. Sorry for any confusion. I still don't think "regulars" need to use a title, or should, but still want to see what others say, e.g. about Strad's trial run suggestion, or some other. --OhioStandard (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC) )
( I was thinking RFC/U. Sorry about that. (note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia...) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC) ) )
I agree with you Ohiostandard: I believe that regulars do not have to say they are regulars.
But on the other hand, I disagree with Guy Macon when he states that WP:DRN is part of WP:Mediation. Editors do not necessarily file cases because they requestionrequest mediation, but because they want a structured rfc. I had a discussion with the founder of the board and initially, I did not agree with the creation of the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, but I was convinced that this fills a void where an editor feels an rfc does not have the structure a DRN has, and that the breaking down of a dispute is a good way to resolve content disagreements for people who need the systematic analysis of a dispute versus the open ended discussion roundtable of a rfc.Curb Chain (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I am fine with whatever the consensus is, and by my count it is currently against me. Unless a few editors are suddenly overcome by the brilliance of my arguments, I am going to go with OhioStandard's suggestion from now on. Either that or Dalek Supreme. Wikipedia really needs a few Dalek Supremes if we ever hope to reach our secret goal of exterminating all organic life. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, come now, that's magnanimous. Seems to me it calls for some kind of consideration or return favour, too. So what about this? For the next six months I'll refer to you on this talk page, at least, and anywhere else I can do so without introducing an unwarranted distraction or confusion, as "His Highness Guy, Dalek Supreme", or "HHGDS", for short. :-) Best regards, --OhioStandard (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! On second thought, I wouldn't want to tip off the biological lifeforms about my Evil Plot, so it would be best to just think it. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I continue to believe that it is very beneficial to, first (but both), make clear that you are not participating in a discussion as a disputant and, second, to let the disputants know that (if it is indeed the case) you have some experience in dispute resolution and haven't (as has occasionally happened here) just signed up as a Wikipedia editor and began, without any experience on either the content or bureaucratic side of WP, giving opinions. While I made a jokey long introductory statement previously, if pushed to do it I might well start pointing out that I am the second most active contributor here at DRN and the third most active at 3O and a coordinator at MEDCAB, all of which are true. Frankly, while that does nice things for my ego, I objectively feel that it gives a far more prejudicial effect than merely claiming that I am a "regular mediator/clerk". Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

TransporterMan, you are either completely wrong or I outright disagree with you. Editors have the right to come to DRN in the goal for a clear consensus or an explanation or further discussion on a issue in a stepwise manner. If the only reason that including some form of disclaimer is to exude a reputation of neutrality then this is the only noticeboard that does this or is not required and contradictory to all the other fora on wikiprojects. I think there is consensus not to use these misleading terms.Curb Chain (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
By my count the consensus is 3 for Ohiostandard's position and 2 for TransporterMan's position. (I agree with TransporterMan but am following what I believe to be the way consensus is headed). I don't call that "consensus not to use". I call it a matter still under discussion with no clear consensus, leaning toward a consensus not to use
I keep hearing claims that we are not allowed to do things that are allowed under current policy if other dispute resolution venues don't do those things. I note that we reject this argument when someone applies it to article content, and would like to see a policy saying that in matters where policy is silent we are bound by the consensus on other pages instead of the consensus here.
If those other dispute resolution venues had actually arrived at a consensus on this I might be more impressed, but they never addressed it because it never came up. In the ten months since TransporterMan started using the term in August of 2011 until OhioStandard questioned the use in June of 2012, a large number of participants other dispute resolution venues dealt with cases that started here, which means they probably looked here to see the history. And of course a large number of editors with disputes read this page during that period. In all of that time, nobody complained, nobody got confused, and zero harm was done. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
@Curb Chain: It is not accurate that "If the only reason that including some form of disclaimer is to exude a reputation of neutrality then this is the only noticeboard that does this," the Third Opinion project expressly says, "Third opinions must be neutral. If you have had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute that would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute." Being a lawyer, I know from real-world dispute resolution that the known neutrality of the mediator (though I certainly recognize that all that we do here at DRN is not just mediation) considerably aids the resolution process. Not doing it would not, I suspect, do any harm that would be immediately apparent because it's an incremental not quantum-leap thing, so I do not feel that Mr. Stradivarius's proposed trial would prove anything. @Everyone: If we're going to make a decision about this by consensus — and I don't think we should, but if we do — whatever that decision turns out to be needs to be incorporated into the "Guide for volunteers" section of the main page header (which comes as close as anything to being policy for this project). I know from long experience at 3O that procedural consensus decisions made here on the talk page will never be seen by new volunteers and the wheel will have to be continually reinvented. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I can vouch for that as far as 3O goes. We all pretty much do our own thing, and it seems to work out all right. TM likes to use an official disclaimer in his 3Os, I like to just introduce it with "Hi, I'm here from 3O", and everyone else has their own preferred option, I'm sure. Why shouldn't it be the same here? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
WP:30 is a completely different forum from this. WP:DRN is not the real world. The fact of the matter is that it is open to any editor, and if they are other agenda than to improve the encyclopaedia we need to know this and put a stop to it. This "neutrality" doesn't help most of the files, or maybe it does as TransporterMan claims, but the fact of the matter is that some files cannot be processed with neutrality and must be taken with a grain of salt and reading between the lines. ANI has tasked us with content disputes and not conduct disputes. We should work like such.Curb Chain (talk) 07:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Closing discussions and other volunteer actions

I closed a discussion for inadequate discussion and Curb Chain objected on my talk page. While I disagree with his reasoning (which I am going to discuss in a separate section, below), I nonetheless reopened the listing and notified the disputants so that he or some other volunteer could handle that dispute. I only mention this because I want to remind everyone that this project is just like any other page at Wikipedia. If any of us object to anything anyone else does here, we should feel free to reverse that person's actions, just as we would as if it was an edit on an article page. The more collegial way of doing it is the way Curb did it, which I very much appreciate and for which I would like to thank him. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I had a similar experience.[2][3][4] I also welcome any criticism / correction and appreciate being told on my talk page so that I can correct the error or disagree, as appropriate. I would of course welcome being reverted if someone thinks that correction can't wait. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you TransporterMan for showing this thoughtfulness. I do appreciate it. I'm not sure why you mentioned I had not responded, but I might have been busy the last couple of days. Once again, thanks TransporterMan.Curb Chain (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Guy Macon for your complimenting edit summaries and to you as well, your amicable editing-manner:-) Cheers and thanksCurb Chain (talk) 07:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No discussion versus inadequate discussion

As noted above, Curb Chain objected to my close of a listing for inadequate discussion on the grounds that though there had been some discussion, "The only discussion of this issue has to be to talk back and forth at one another, rather than talking to one another about the actual issues involved." In short, there had been some back-and-forth on talk pages (mainly complaints about the other's actions and demands that one respond to the other's arguments), but no substantive discussion about the matter in dispute. Curb was objectively right in objecting that there had been some discussion, and that's all that our guidelines require. I am not asking for an evaluation of either Curb's or my action in this particular case, but I do think that the distinction between no discussion and some, but inadequate discussion is worth talking about.

No discussion closes have always been controversial, even though every current form of content dispute resolution requires talk page discussion and, thus, permits such closes. In my opinion, it is a necessary requirement, however, in order to preserve the Wiki-ideal of editing through consensus and collegiality. Its existence forces editors to discuss their edits and reversions before calling in the cavalry. (And I would note that even RFC, the most Wiki-faithful and organic of the cavalry-calling procedures, has had at least an implied must-discuss requirement from its very beginning, "The purpose of this page is to inform the community of contentious discussions that are currently being held on various talk or sub pages." [Emphasis added.])

The question is, how much discussion is enough? There seems to be general agreement that discussion merely through edit summaries is not enough, that it must move onto the talk page. But is the fact that both editors merely mention the dispute or hurl insults at one another about the dispute on the talk page enough? How about one editor saying something like, "That's not allowed because it's not NPOV." and the other replying, "No it's not."? If that's all the discussion that there is, is that enough?

My personal feeling is that the purpose of the must-discuss rule is not satisfied until both disputants have made a genuine effort to discuss the dispute, not just an attempt or gesture. An absolute no-discussion-of-any-kind is procedurally easier to evaluate, of course, but falls short of what the requirement is intended to do. What do you think?

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It may be that the editors involved do not have a good appreciation of how to discuss on the Talk page. Perhaps the DRN could be viewed as an opportunity for uninvolved editors to kickstart the discussion (and education) within the DRN page; the discussion could then move back to the Talk page. Alternatively, an uninvolved editor may have a clearcut resolution to the underlying content dispute, in which case it would be a shame to close the DRN before that hypothetical editor had a chance to view the DRN and post their thoughts. The biggest reason to delay closure is this: WP has a problem retaining new editors, and DRN may be the first time new editors venture into a WP Noticeboard - they may get alienated if their foray is rejected for failing to perform some prerequisite (the Talk page discussion) that they do not comprehend. --Noleander (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I tend to ask them to try to work it out on the talk page but to leave the DRN discussion open for the inevitable questions. The hope is that eventually they will start discussing on the talk page and I can close the DRN discussion for inactivity. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The dispute proper

So I've reread the dispute but it seems to have disappeared. To be frank, I only had problems with TransporterMan's closing statement, not the closure of the DRN-file; either there was no talk page (2-party) discussion (as the reopened DRN file seems not to show), or it seems not be linked currently.

If I somehow misread the DRN file, I must have thought that the sole editor posting on Talk:List of CBS television affiliates (table) in ==RfC: Should there be a link to CBS Television Stations?== must have been the discussion, but as you can see, this wasn't a discussion at all.

I have no objection to closing this DRN file.Curb Chain (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

When DRN will refer editors on

bot test

I was looking through the X-ray Computed Tomography thread and wondered whether it would have not been more efficient to have referred the poster immediately to RSN, given that his formulated question was about a particular source. S/he asked if the source was "as good as the others in the article", which is a misconception, because that isn't a criterion in evaluating sources. The quality of the debate then spiralled downhill quickly and Transportman correctly capped off the user conduct issues. I'm not raising this to quibble with anyone's responses in this case, just to say that it raises the question of how much can be resolved here and at what point users are referred elsewhere. It seems to me that in some cases, where a poster is very frustrated and sounding off in all directions, an immediate response might include several referrals on: "Take this question to RSN, this one to BLPN, this one to COIN, this one to WQA, etc.". Not to fob them off or to make editing within the rules even more complicated than it already is, but to break a set of problems into manageable chunks, and to get questions looked at by the people most experienced in those areas. Thoughts? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

As just a preliminary note, the header at RSN says, "This is not the place for content disputes, which should be directed to the article talk page, the associated WikiProject, or Dispute resolution noticeboard." That makes it sound as if there is a distinction being made at RSN over people merely asking for advice about a sourcing question, on the one hand, and dispute resolution on another. The fact is that both venues probably handle some considerable number of sourcing disputes and, indeed, there is a huge amount of overlap between all the problem-solving venues here at WP (a subject currently being discussed, at least indirectly, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dispute_Resolution, which also includes some discussions of "triage" proposals such as that which you have proposed). Part of the problem is that while it is pretty clear what the DR-per-se forums do, it's not at all clear exactly what, or with what "authority" (I put in quotes because except for ARBCOM and a couple of other forums, none of us actually have any authority) a lot of those other forums do. Moreover, response at a lot of them (including, it must be said, at the DR forums, though 3O and DRN are fairly consistent at the moment) is inconsistent in both response time (or response at all) and quality of response. I'm not saying any of these concerns necessarily apply to RSN, at least not at the moment, but it is a concern. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for this reply. To avoid having the same discussion in more than one place, I'll take a look at what's being said at WikiProject Dispute Resolution. I suspect, as you imply, that we have too many noticeboards and forums at the moment. RSN does have a distinct brief and is working quite well. BLPN too, I believe, although I don't follow it closely. I do follow NORN and NPOVN, where questions and responses are less frequent than they might be. NPOVN might be obsolete given that virtually every case brought here involves disagreement about points of view. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
@TransporterMan: (In response to your comment about how the other noticeboards don't have authority): One reason noticeboards exist is to give a forum for interested editors to contribute to consesnus when questionable content arise. You are correct in mentioning that this noticeboard is somewhat of a catchall as mentioned by Itsmejudith indicating that this noticeboard has a "... brief".Curb Chain (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
In my experience, pointing out that I have no authority and that I am there to help the editors reach agreement rather than there to make a ruling significantly increases the chances of a good outcome. Sometimes people come to DRN thinking that they need a cop when what they really need is a mediator. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
It works in some places it doesn't in others. We don't make rulings and we never have; we have made decisions converging to consensus. If they report situations ungermane to this board then we point them to the right one or make closures to indicate this.Curb Chain (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Today We Shall Discuss the Naming of Names

Filing a case. Opening a discussion, Initiating a conversation. Starting an entry. Disputant. Filer. Initiator. 3rd party. Uninvolved editor. Dalek Supreme. I would like to know what the best names to use for these things are. My specific questions are:

When someone fills out the form and some new text shows up at DRN, the text (including response) is called a ?????? and what she /he did is called ????? a ????? at WP:DRN.

The person who filled out the form is called a ?????

The other persons named are called ?????

A person with no prior interaction with the whatever-it-is-called or any of the editors named but who has previous experience at DRN is called a dispute resolution volunteer or just volunteer (this one was already discussed and decided)

A person with no prior interaction with the whatever-it-is-called or any of the editors named and no previous experience at DRN is called a ?????

Any I missed? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

My tuppence-worth.
When someone fills out the form and some new text shows up at DRN, the text (including response) is called a Query and what she /he did is called Filing a Query at WP:DRN.
The person who filled out the form is called a Filing editor.
The other persons named are called Involved editors.
A person with no prior interaction with the whatever-it-is-called or any of the editors named and no previous experience at DRN is called an Uninvolved editor or a New volunteer (depending on whether they want to get involved in other cases). Itsmejudith (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
So, something like this?
"Hi! I am a Dalek Supreme dispute resolution volunteer here at WP:DRN . I noticed that the filing editor filed this query without the involved editors trying to resolve the dispute on the article talk page first. WP:DRN is not for disputes which have been carried out only through edit summaries or which have not received substantial discussion on a talk page. Please go back to the article and make a good-faith effort to work out your differences. I am closing this query, but you have the option of opening another one if you are unable to reach an agreement on the article talk page."
Just personal preference, but "closing this query" sounds a little weird, and something in the back of my mind is kind of expecting a noticeboard to deal with something called a "notice" or perhaps "notification". --Guy Macon (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at WP:DRN|the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I noticed that this notice has been filed without sufficient attempt to resolve the dispute on the article talk page. WP:DRN is not for disputes that haven't been discussed on a talk page already. Please go back to the article and make a good-faith effort to work out your differences. Each editor involved should explain what they would like to see happen to the relevant article(s), what sources they wish to use, and how they wish to present the information in those sources. I am closing this notice. If you are unable to reach agreement on the article talk page, you may consider WP:RFC|a request for comment, or a WP:3O|a third opinion, or file another notice here. (Tweaks, and try notice for query.) Itsmejudith (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Much better if the purpose is telling someone to discuss a dispute on the article talk page. If the purpose is to write some example text using "query" and "filing editor" in context, not so much. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

In the section directly above this one, The term "case", "dispute" and "thread" have been used to describe what Itsmejudith says is a "query". I would really appreciate some other opinions on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are my answers:
When someone fills out the form and some new text shows up at DRN, the text (including response) is called a case and what she /he did is called filing a case at WP:DRN.
The person who filled out the form is called the filing editor/filing party
The other persons named are called involved editors/involved parties
A person with no prior interaction with the whatever-it-is-called or any of the editors named but who has previous experience at DRN is called a dispute resolution volunteer or just volunteer. (Agreed)
A person with no prior interaction with the whatever-it-is-called or any of the editors named and no previous experience at DRN is called a volunteer. (No special treatment for regulars)
Other people's views may differ, however, and I think I've used every term suggested for all of these roles at some point or other, with the possible exception of Dalek Supreme. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I rather like the above. Does anybody disagree? If so, speak up now, because it is likely that whatever we agree on will go into the documentation somewhere. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't disagree; I am just ambivalent. We don't need to enshrine terms and make it legal and restrict how editors express themselves and I will definitely oppose making it policy to use the terms with blocks as repercussions for not using them.Curb Chain (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Blocks? That would be bad. I was thinking more along the lines of "here is a list of commonly used terms, but feel free to use others". --Guy Macon (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
THAT I would Support. WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP is quite related to this concept.Curb Chain (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

My suggestions:

  • When someone fills out the form and some new text shows up at DRN, the text (including response) is called a quest and what she /he did is called invoking the Council of Elrond at WP:DRN.
  • The person who filled out the form is called the insignificant but stalwart Hobbit
  • The other persons named are called pursuing Orcs.
  • A person with no prior interaction with the whatever-it-is-called or any of the editors named but who has previous experience at DRN is called a angelic Istar or just wizard.
  • A person with no prior interaction with the whatever-it-is-called or any of the editors named and no previous experience at DRN is called a (mixing metaphors, admittedly) redshirt.

On second thought, I think Mr. Stadivarius' choices are on the mark (as best practice, but not as rules). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree to Mr Strad's suggestions. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

For me, a new request made by filling out the form is a dispute and all people that are not volunteers or uninvolved editors are disputants. Optional, of course, but it may be wise to prepend our initial comment with something like, "Hi, I am a volunteer here at DRN" or something like that, which in my mind solves what I see as a need for disputants, the need to know who is helping them with their dispute. But that's just my opinion or course. I've changed the heading on the header from "Guide for participants" to "Guide for disputants" as participants, to me, could be anyone who edits here, where disputants are only those involved in the dispute. But that's just my opinion. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 22:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

So the Filing Disputant; is the person who files the dispute and the Involved Disputants respond to the dispute? That's unusual grammar. I don't mind dispute / disputant but I think the other words like file need to be adjusted to make it work. Also, what do we call what they were doing on the article talk page before the dispute was filed? A pre-dispute? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the basics as noted by Mr. Stradivarius should be fine, the rest will work themselves out through common practice : ) - jc37 00:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1994-11-15/# --Guy Macon (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

DRN changes

Hi all. I think a few changes might be wise at DRN. I've created a case status template (it's at Template:DR case status, documentation on it's use is there) and I think it could help us keep track of the status of a dispute a lot easier. I've added it to the core of the code and done some tests, and it's functioning well. I was motivated to do this when I saw a dispute (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Rangers_FC_club_dead_or_not) which was so long that I couldn't determine if anyone has offered assistance. It turns out that it hasn't, and probably needs to be looked into, however it got me thinking about the need to make it easier for us, and new users, to see the status of a dispute. I also think that the giant walls of text that people write before a volunteer provides assistance. I'm currently working on a creating a simplified way for people to file dispute at WMF, but for the time being I think we should create and set some rules, and enforce them: opening statements to be no more than 250 words, other parties make one comment no more than 250 words, and it stays this way until a volunteer comes and opens the thread up (from the default "new" to "open".) I think that by doing this the "ugh" that some of us all experience (and new potential volunteers have) when they see massive walls of text would reduce, and this may increase the amount of volunteers we have. There's a few other things I'm working on at present, but I wanted some thoughts on this. Let me know of any ideas you have. Regards, Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 10:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. I think these suggestions are spot on. At the moment too many threads are just an extension of the article talk page. If participants are forced to stick to their statements before a volunteer shows up, I think we will see an instant improvement in the quality of noticeboard threads. (And by extension, an increase in threads that get resolved.) I also agree about this being a good move to attract new volunteers. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 11:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
One other thing that was mentioned is the difficulty of identifying volunteers here, so something as simple as prefixing one's initial comment with something like "Hi, I'm a volunteer here at DRN, blah blah blah" would be sufficient. No funky titles required...just makes it clearer :) Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 11:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose all There's no reason to limit opening statements or comments because that can prevent the detail required in explanation if a case needs that detail. 2nd, There is no reason to label a case "new" or "open" because DRN is another forum for people to hash out disputes, and we have no power to determine if a case is new or open.Curb Chain (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Have a read of Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Rangers_FC_club_dead_or_not and tell me if you would take that dispute on based on the wall of text. We moderate this noticeboard a lot, so we do have the power to make changes - as a volunteer it makes it easy to see the status of a dispute, and as a participant it makes it easier to know the status of my dispute. In regards to word limits, the limit is negotiable, but having some word limit there does force an editor to be concise and not ramble. A wall of text makes it less likely for new volunteers to get involved, and that's a problem we're having at the moment. If you have a better idea that can improve the way DRN handles disputes, increases ease of use for participants and makes DR more attractive to new potential volunteers, please share. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 16:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I think a word-count limitation is not a bad idea, though I think 250 might be a bit too few (Steve's proposal, above, was 278 words) and I think we need to talk about what we are to do if (a) someone goes over or (b) asks for a expanded limit. If we're not going to have appointed mediators or clerks here, can just any editor who wanders in deal with those issues? Do we just truncate at 250 or do we remove the listing altogether and tell them to relist more succinctly? I also think case-status indicators are a good idea, but they do require an additional degree of buy-in and diligence from volunteers. @Curb Chain: I understand your vision for DRN, but I have to wonder that if that's all DRN is to be, why is it needed at all? Why not just eliminate DRN and rely on RFP to draw additional uninvolved editors into the discussion on the article talk page? That would have the benefit of avoiding having the discussion about an article split into different locations, as well. To say it in a different way: If the volunteers here do not have a role at least somewhat different from the editors who come into a discussion from a RFP request, what's the benefit of DRN? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
DRN is not page protection and recruitment isn't the purpose of this board.Curb Chain (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I disagree that recruitment is not one purpose of this noticeboard. The reason that the structure is lightweight is so the process is not too confusing for new volunteers, and speaking as the creator this was one secondary reason I came up with the idea of DRN. There's not enough of us, and we need to find ways to grow our numbers. We can either think of ways to do that, or leave things as they are. If you want to personally commit to be active in the resolution of every DRN thread that is filed, then please do - but otherwise we need to discuss our options. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 04:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
This isn't relevant to building an encylopedia. DRN is to assist disputes on improvement of an encyclopedia. This secondary reason is not relevant to what Wikipedia is.
Volunteer recruitment and retention is unrelated to the dispute process. If you are looking for to recruit volunteers, changing how DRN works is not going to get you more volunteers.Curb Chain (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect, I think you are completely wrong. Recruitment isn't relevant to building an encyclopedia? Try building an an encyclopedia without making it easy for folks to help. Oh, wait, Larry Sanger already tried that. Changing how DRN works is not going to get you more volunteers? Really? If we require a PhD and a $10,000 donation to the WMF we will get the same number of volunteers we get now? If we automate everything so that a trained monkey can do it and so that every dispute is solved within hours of being filed, we will get the same number of volunteers we get now? That cannot possibly be true. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
My 2c: DR folks have tried forever trying to get people involved, usually through canvassing VP or IRC. I came into it because I already had an interest, and I imagine that's true for most of us (I'd like to hear other opinions, though). So how do we foster interest in DR? My guess would to make DR more effective: If they can do it, I can do it too! It's a good skill to have. And more to the point of the thread, if we make DR more effective, we may get more volunteers, and the two fall hand in hand. I'm interested in Curb Chain's response to this. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Steven Zhang's proposal is to fundamentally change how DRN works now for the sole purpose of recruiting more volunteers and this proposal of changing it affects the way DRN works now. if it ain't broke, don't fix it and his proposal is will break the usefulness and purpose of the initial entry into dispute resolution.Curb Chain (talk) 01:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe that it's a fundamental change. Steve created DRN because of problems at MedCom and MedCab, like the lack of volunteers and the ability for one editor to filibuster the process. If we deal with the filibuster problem, we might also get more volunteers who would otherwise be intimidated by the massive walls of text. OTOH, this doesn't stop other parties from contributing massive walls of text in reply.
Now that I think about this, doesn't that sort of render this meaningless? After all, by the time any potential volunteer has had the chance to look at the dispute, so many comments may have been made that it's still a massive wall of text (WP:MWOT]?). Is there a better way of dealing with this? Xavexgoem (talk) 02:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
This forum is not staffed by volunteers who are to take cases simply because we are uninvolved in the dispute. The problem with the term "clerk" has been raised and it seems that some editors think that you must be neutral to comment on the cases filed on this forum. There is no local consensus for this "board" to have their own system of taking disputes and to do so would clearly take this forum out of dispute resolution.Curb Chain (talk) 08:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not too sure what you mean when you say "to do so would clearly take this forum out of dispute resolution". Personally, I can't think of a scenario in which we change the board so much that it ceases to be a part of dispute resolution. (Short of deleting the whole thing or overwriting it with a random article, that is.) Could you elaborate on your position here a little? Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note - I proposed these changes because I do have statistics on the noticeboard that indicates a problem - but I haven't completed compiling them. I'll be doing this today and will present the stats later. Regards, Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 12:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Mr. Stradivarius: Firstly, I see no reason to limit opening statements/Steven's proposed changes/marking open cases, taken cases, etc. when other dispute notice boards or other boards such as Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance does not do this. Secondly, I see no reason to recruit volunteers for the same reason (when other boards do not do this).
Steven, are you a statistician? How do you determine a problem?Curb Chain (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that other boards don't do things doesn't mean that we should not. You say that we should not recruit volunteers - but at present there's just a handful of us, and some of the disputes aren't being looked at for days - some are being ignored completely. I'm not a statistician, but I am compiling stats for DR pages, and that's so I can measure how effective they are. At the moment, it doesn't look good. I'll be posting the stats soon, but there's a very developed idea behind my proposals. I'll be going over it at Wikimania, so if you're there you'll hear my thoughts, or I'm happy to explain it over a conference call - but at present all I'm getting from you is "I see no reason for X, X is not needed" without any evidence to back up your claims. If you think change is not needed and DRN works fine, and disputes are getting resolved effectively here, show me where you see that. If you also think that there are enough volunteers here, show me where. These changes are designed to satisfy a few needs.

For disputants, the needs I have identified are:

  • Simple, obvious way to file disputes
  • Understanding of who is helping me
  • Understanding of the current status of the dispute, and where to go if my dispute is not being looked into.
  • Quick response and resolution timeframe for disputes.

For volunteers, the needs are:

  • A place to sign up where they can list their skills or interested activities.
  • Disputes to have a short summary which takes only a few minutes to understand – no walls of text to read through
  • Recognition of their work
  • Easy and quick way to understand the current status of a dispute.

The changes have a few purposes - the status template allows the parties to know the status of their dispute, and allows other volunteers to identify if a dispute needs attention (thereby addressing the issue of disputes that are not looked into for days). The idea of appending one's comment with something like "Hi, I am a volunteer here at DRN" allows parties to understand who is helping them, and provides some recognition to the volunteers - from time to time parties will give barnstars to a volunteer for a job well done - and while this isn't why we all do DR, it does make us feel good - and the key thing here is it makes new volunteers satisfied, and thus more likely to continue DR. DRN was created for two reasons, to make it easier to file a dispute, and to make it easier to volunteer - one literally looks at a thread and leaves comments on how they see things. It's an infinite loop, and at present things are going the wrong way. Without a word limit, threads become TL;DR, so new volunteers take a glance at them and either think "ugh, too hard" or "someone must surely have addressed this issue already" and the thread gets left alone. We burnout. A year ago, DR volunteers was likely at its lowest point - with the creation of DRN it's started to improve, but the ratio of disputants to volunteers, or even disputes to volunteers, is very bad. Again, you'll see my stats soon, but it's not like I haven't thought this through - I've been working on this for months. I would be interested to hear as to why you think DRN works well at the present time, and why you think DR in general is functioning well with the amount of volunteers we have at present. Regards, Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 12:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

DRN was never meant to replace WP:Arbitration or WP:Mediation Committee. Answer me why you think these changes should be implemented because it would improve these dispute systems.Curb Chain (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
He just did. Absolutely no-one thinks that DRN is or ever will be a replacement for ArbCom or MedCom, and I'm at a loss as to how you came to that conclusion or where it was suggested that this could be so. Besides the word limit, Steve is also bringing up fairly mundane template changes which has not been addressed by you substantively. Finally, and this bears repeating, Steve created DRN not that long ago, and he holds nearly all the institutional memory of this place. What it was meant or not meant to do is something only he'd know. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
That's a bold statement. Go to those talk pages and ask if those boards should be closed for this. As for the templates, that is not a big issue, but the word limit I continue to Oppose.Curb Chain (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
That's fine, but it has consensus from everyone else in this thread. If it gets implemented, what are you going to do? Xavexgoem (talk) 04:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
What is the word limit? There is no consensus.Curb Chain (talk) 04:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, so far you've threatened Steve with an ANI thread for unpublished statistics (that he's making on behalf of the WMF, no less), insist on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and all of your replies have been terse, insisting, and hard to follow. I see no reason for myself or anyone else to continue discussion with you on this matter. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, the stats on DRN are now ready, and are available here. However, to go over the results briefly - for the month of May 2012 there were 42 disputes, which on average were commented on by a volunteer within 16.6 hours, however 21.4% of disputes were not addressed by a volunteer at all. It took 8.6 days from open to close of a thread. 25 editors volunteered at DRN at least once, or 12.07% of the 207 total editors. 47.61% of the disputes were resolved successfully, 52.38% were unresolved. This is why I think we need change - especially because one in five disputes didn't even get looked at by a volunteer - and this may be due to the size of the initial threads or the comments that follow. By restricting the participants in their initial comments, it makes them think carefully about what to say instead of rambling. It also means that new volunteers won't look at a thread and think "There's no way I'm reading all of that". There's always a reason behind what I do. I don't make proposals for no reason :-) Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 07:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your efforts on this, Steve. I am one of the people who could be recruited as a volunteer. I frequent the noticeboards because that seems a good way to employ my skills. I've not got involved in mediation because it seems too drawn out and orientated towards understanding between editors rather than article quality. This board de-escalates disputes, which has to be a good thing. Please do keep the procedure simple. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
@User:Xavexgoem: If Steven Zhang is to be entrusted by the Wikipemedia Foundation to procure these statistics, he should act professionally and not discuss statistics if they are not published. This has been discussed before and he agreed to not do this again.Curb Chain (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you noticed, but nowhere in this thread have I used unpublished results of the statistics measuring activity of dispute resolution forums. I've made comment on my general observations of dispute resolution (which can be seen by anyone by just glancing over the DRN archives) but have not referred to the stats until it was published (see above). You can see the results in the link provided. You have every right to disagree - but realize that you stand alone here. I have other important things to do, so I will not be replying any further here. I, as well as the others here, consider this matter closed. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 01:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"I'll be posting the stats soon, ..." as mentioned by you. If the stats are nonot relevant to the discussion, why are you discussing them as an argument? You are the complier of the statesstats. The Wikimedia Foundation gave you permission to compile them. Wikimedia Foundation did not give you permission to use them outside of that scope.Curb Chain (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I like the opening statements requirement. It's far too easy to further muddy the waters if you let a guy spiel for paragraphs. How many DRN threads become largely about the opening statement? I haven't checked, but I'm sure it happens enough to be worrisome. It's better for us and for them if they have to get straight to the point. Ideally. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the opening statements requirement is highly desirable. Many noticeboards get overrun by editors already in dispute. The point of a noticeboard is to get help from people not already involved. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we can all do with a bit less absolute "the effect of change X WILL be Y" thinking and a few less "my opinion on the entire proposal is Z" comments. Better to say that you think that a particular part of the proposal will have a particular effect. I seriously doubt that the proposal is all good or all bad, or that anyone is 100% sure which parts are good and which parts are bad. No proposal is ever as beneficial as its proponents predict, or as harmful as its opponents predict. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Word limit

What does everyone think the word limit should be, if we're going to have one? I'm thinking 400 words might be good to start off with, but I'm open to persuasion. We can always revise it upwards or downwards as we see how involved editors react. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 06:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I think 400 words is a good start. This DRN thread looks relatively reasonable, and comes in at 447 words. If we have issues, we can always up it to 500 - but I think 400 is reasonable. How do we all think about giving the other parties to the dispute one 400 word opening statement, and they can continue to discuss it once a DRN volunteer has opened the thread (by commenting on the dispute and so on). Also, do y'all mind if you start using the {{DR case status}} template? It's pretty easy - if you open a thread, change it to {{DR case status|open}}, and the other instructions for use are at Template:DR case status/doc. Thanks! Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 07:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_3&oldid=1142511379"