Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 6

Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

DRN notice

It appears that {{DRN-notice}} doesn't make it absolutely clear that disputants' input is expected at WP:DRN. Or I just don't know how to interpret this otherwise. Any comments? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the wording a bit to emphasise the need to participate. How is this? Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 22:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

New to DRN?

I have a request for one or more of our new volunteers.

We have a couple of documents that should be clearly written and not confusing, and sometimes a person with experience misses problems in such documents. I would like any of you who are just reading the docs for the first time to look at the following and identify anything that is unclear or which assumes knowledge you don't have.

The first thing I want you to look at is the "Guide for volunteers" section at the top of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. The second is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering, which you reach by clicking on the "Volunteer" button in the above.

It is a well known part of human nature that we tend to blame ourselves for not understanding unclear instructions.[1] We want to identify those parts of the above documents that are confusing at first glance but clear once something else has been explained to you.

Please post any comments or corrections here. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a DRN volunteer at all, but since this page is still on my watch list I thought I'd offer my eyeballs. With respect to the /Header, "button above" is a little confusing (I wondered if there was an actual button I didn't see), but I simply take it to mean the Volunteer link. Beyond that it's all easy to understand and seems to be comprehensive. After having a read of /Volunteering, I appreciate the header for the manner in which it simplifies the recommendations; kudos on the decision-making that went into what is essential and what is "just" important—that's not an easy line to draw, but I thought it was done well. As far as criticisms for the volunteer page go, I have one minor nitpick and one bit of confusion. The nitpick is at WP:DRNG#Resolving a case, item "This request requires a volunteer's attention", which states to ask participants to hold off discussion until the volunteer has had time to review the thread. I'm not familiar with the way DRN works in practice, but I don't know whether this is implying that threads require serious meditation prior to response, or just that active threads can get very busy. The fact that it's explicitly recommended when either of those implications are pretty straight forward makes me second-guess my judgment for that sort of thing. The actually confusing part is in that same section: the resolved/archived statuses seem to contradict the directions on the header. For closing threads, one says to use {{DR case status}} and the other says to use {{DRN archive top}} and bottom. After a full read I see that the matter is addressed in WP:DRNG#Closing discussions, but the distinction between closed, "archived", and actually-archived (e.g. removed by bot) is still murky for me. BigNate37(T) 21:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering is particularly confusing. What is confusing is the fact that DRN (and dispute resolution in general) has been undergoing major changes in the past few months. Medcab was shut down, the bar for Medcom was lowered, and new changes have been introduced to DRN (like opening comments). Once everything settles down, which should happen in the next few months, and as long as the instructions are kept up to date with the ongoing discussions on this talk page, there shouldn't be any problems. --SGCM (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I just massively edited /Volunteering. Not much of the wording has changed; it's mostly formatting, but it's purdier. I also added some of the tips from MedCab over to here. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Norman, Donald A. (2002) [First published 1988]. The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books. pp. 40–41. ISBN 0-465-06710-7.

Jolla

DRN is so informal that we don't listen to the people at all? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm new to DRN (I've mostly stuck to volunteering at 3O up to this point), but as a lightweight and informal process, aren't first impressions of a dispute allowable? As the long discussion on Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard indicates, the new procedures for DRN haven't been finalized yet, so I don't have a grasp as to what's proper and what isn't. As an informal process, I thought that preliminary comments were acceptable. I apologize if I've made a mistake, but as a new volunteer, and with the new procedures for DRN being discussed at this very moment, what exactly are the conventions for DRN?--SGCM (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
As you are a DRN volunteer, you might want to get yourself comfortable with the current instructions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering. Feel free to ask questions (if any) on talk page. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
This is getting off topic, but what's the consensus on preliminary commenting? The ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Opening cases with no opening statements and Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#RfC on prohibiting editors from commenting before Opening Statements written doesn't offer an obvious answer. My comment was made entirely in good faith, and is just a summary and analysis of the discussion that has already occurred on Talk:Jolla. Isn't that acceptable? There seems to be different perspectives on the issue in the talk page discussion.--SGCM (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
You might notice, that in instruction (which is not under discussion and is already effective), it is said when the template at top right corner of the case section reads "This request is unassessed", you are expected to "[b]riefly read over the opening comments and try to assess the situation - who's involved, what's the problem and what do the involved editors want out of dispute resolution?" Could you please explain me, what conclusion did you come to upon analyzing opening comments? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Isn't the talk page discussion open to preliminary analysis and first impressions? All the editors have already stated their positions on the talk page. Opening comments were introduced very recently. Let me reiterate that my comment was made entirely in good faith as a new volunteer. I've apologized that I wasn't aware of the bureaucratic formalities, so let's move on.--SGCM (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't mean any bad faith on your behalf or something you should apologize for. In fact I overreacted and I ask to accept my apologies. I just [wrongfully] assumed that you saw the edit history of this page on your watchlist. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
In my day... we used to brandish the piece of bread slathered with honey first to try and encourage editors to do something. If they didn't get the hint we'd take out the cluebat of cluefulness to explicitly ask them if they wanted an attitude adjustment. Finally if they didn't get the hint we'd tell them outright to stop doing something. Usually that stopped most issues. If not, there's always the Street Judges like Dredd who have no problem with dispensing preventative justice. Hasteur (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
See, these people are told that they are invited to a place where others would informally help them to sort out their problem. They are encouraged to speak up and promised that they will be heard. There's something wrong with the fact, that upon following the link they'll find out that there is a prepared "obvious" resolution and nobody actually needs their opinions. I'm not sure that this has anything to do with dispute resolution. P.S.: if I get you right... well... don't think it changes anything. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree, if opinions by DRN volunteers offer suggested solutions straight off without input from all parties, then DRN becomes WP:3O. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
You get more bees with honey than with vinegar and you get more flies with ____ than anything else. Let's attract bees and not flies. Mkay? Hasteur (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • My take on the whole preliminary comments idea - if one has reviewed the whole talk page of the article in question, then we should not prohibit leaving comments - this is how I did things before opening statements were part of DRN, and it's how I still do things now. I won't base my comments solely on the opening statements, I'll read the talk page too. I thought this was still in the instructions, but it wasn't - I've added it in. We should encourage waiting for opening statements, as that's the best way - but not make it a mandatory thing for new volunteers.Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 22:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree. It is best to wait for opening comments; but that is not always feasible. If a drive-by editor has read the background in the Talk page, then by all means let them post a preliminary opinion. If necessary, we can mark such comments as preliminary/provisional/beforeAllOpening or something. --Noleander (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If I might say something, one of the characteristics I like best about DR volunteers is our ability to work together. Part of that — and I don't mean to point negative fingers here at anyone — is a huge amount of tolerance for different approaches on how we do our work here. Is there any consensus on weighing in before all disputants have weighed in? No, I don't think so; it's a matter of personal discretion. As I said above, if you add a couple of my statements together, I believe there are cases when it is justified, other times that it's pretty important, and yet others when I think it's inadvisable. We have to give everyone a lot of latitude for making that judgment. I looked at Jolla and had the same impression SGCM did and almost jumped in but then decided not to; SGCM went the other way. It's fine for us to discuss which way is better and which way is not, but let's be careful not to sound accusatory or critical. Some of us are gruff, some all-business, some kidders, some reconcilers, but I am truly honored to work here with you all, with the way you work together and the good you do for the encyclopedia. You all deserve this:

The Barnstar of Integrity
To everyone who works and comments here for working together in the way that Wikipedia should always work. You all are great! Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


— 20:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words about the volunteers. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:DRN archive top

I'm unhappy about the {{DRN archive top}} hiding the closing comment by default. I prepared the version that shows the contents of |reason= (or first unnamed parameter) in the title of collapse top-derived part of the template. Any comments? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I will find a solution. I remember making that template for DRN when DRN was created. Maybe something like
Closing comments
Filing editor and status

~~Ebe123~~ → report 17:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I just didn't get: you don't like the idea of putting the rationale to the collapse's header like I did in template's sandbox? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I do not like putting it in the header. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I modified template's sandbox per your advise and created testcase. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I've implemented the change - looks good and makes it quite clear when and who closed a dispute. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 10:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I saw you tried substituting {{DRN archive top/sandbox}}. One of its revisions was indeed tuned for substitution, and it linked closer's talk page with {{subst:REVISIONUSER}}. It somehow helps to come to a right user talk page, but implementation would need fixing archives. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The template in the sandbox looks great. Nice job, czarkoff.--SGCM (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I propose moving the reason parameter in Template:DRN archive top into the NavHead. It's a chore to check on the closing rationale via the show/hide button for each DR request. Any objections?--SGCM (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see this discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
So it has been proposed before! Well, I guess there's consensus for it. :P --SGCM (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Seemingly not: Ebe123 reverted my changes. BTW, can we just move these comments to that thread? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed.--SGCM (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

template proposal

OK, so there is a proposal to change {{DRN archive top}} to this version (or to this revision if the template is supposed to be substituted). Comments? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

DRN month to date stats

Hi all, here are the month to date stats for DRN compared with the stats for May, and the goals we have. Doing well, some things need improving. Let's recruit more, yeah?

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics
Result for May Goals for August % change desired Results for August so far (1 - 15 Aug) % change Achieved
Avg. Response Time 16.6 hrs <10 hrs -39.75% 2.25 hours -86.45% - well on target
% responded to 78.6% responded to 100% responded to +21.4% 100% responded to +21.4% - on target
# of active volunteers 25 - 1 to 12 ratio with 207 participants 30+ +16.67% 14 - ratio of 1 to 6.7 with 95 participants -44% - needs addressing
Timeframe discussion open for 8.6 days 5 - 7 days -18.6% to -41.9% 0.77 days -91.04% - well on target
Success rate 47.61% 70%+ +22.39% 61.54% +13.93 - needs improving

Szhang (WMF) (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the statistics ... always important to support decision making. Regarding the number of volunteers: Concur that more are better. Regarding the "Resolution timeframe" ... is that the elapsed time from open to close? I have mixed feelings about that: I've sensed that some cases are being quickly and aggressively closed in August. It could be argued that longer case times are a good thing: more time for drive-by editors to notice a case and offer input. Could the lack of volunteers be due to the fact that so many cases are quickly collapsed (so they cannot readily read the case summary)? Should the drive for faster closing be de-emphasized? --Noleander (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Following up on that thought: Some additional metrics that may be useful are: (a) total number of comments from uninvolved editors (per case); and (b) number of distinct uninvolved editors that comment (per case). If that latter number were large, that would be a great indicator of success, I think. --Noleander (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Why? I thought this noticeboard serves the purpose of dispute resolution, not of social network... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

@SZ: When that table above says "Volunteer" - does that include any uninvolved editor that responded? or only those editors listed in the List? --Noleander (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

And what determines "success", too, Steve? (It seems like a simple concept, but it's actually pretty tricky.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The best measure of success, in my opinion, is that the parties all leave the DRN process satisfied. One can think of DRN as a service, and parties as customers. Someone earlier suggested that SZ conduct a survey of parties after August to see what they thought of the DRN experience, and I think SZ said he was planning on doing that. --Noleander (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm also concerned with "Success rate" (which seems to be measured as "resolve / (close + resolve)" (see {{DR case status}}). In my experience, most of cases closed with "close" status were actually resolved before case was closed, but not on DRN. I would also note, that I'm very concerned with the "Avg. Response Time", which is no way related to actual response time. (Everybody watching WT:DRN probably know the issue.) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Some addendums: Changed resolution timeframe to timeframe open for. If disputes that had a result of Not Applicable are removed, the timeframe open changes from 0.77 days to 2 days, 31 minutes - something a bit more reasonable. With all threads taken into account, we have an average of 2.34 volunteers per thread, NA disputes removed this is bumped up to three. As for how volunteers were assessed, I read through comments on all the DRN threads filed between 00:01 1 Aug and 23:59 15 Aug and noted all that had either identified themselves as a volunteer by their comments or explicitly ("I am a volunteer here at DRN..."). It took time - it was a long night. I've got full stats in a Google Doc, but adding it at the moment to my activity stats page. Hope this answers a few questions. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 03:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Table of contents

With all the subheadings for each DRN case, the TOC has gotten considerably long. Should we add {{TOC limit}} or {{TOC hidden}} to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Header?--SGCM (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It was there at one time and after one of the page redesigns I commented it out because it was breaking something, though I don't recall what. Someone has since removed the commented-out tag. Try it, but make sure it doesn't break something else. Even if it does, someone who knows more than I do about coding (which is virtually any knowledge at all since I have almost none) might be able to fix it. On the other hand, I like being able to jump directly to where I want to go, but that's no big deal in the grand scheme of things. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Done. Whatever it was breaking seems to have been fixed. Thanks for the quick response.--SGCM (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually TOC is redundant with {{DRN case status}}, so it may be removed at all; that said, the editor who has just filed a dispute would not see it in {{DRN case status}} unless next bot's run. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
That's a good point. Would you support removing the TOC limit and using {{TOC hidden}} instead, for users that want to jump directly to a subheading? Or should the TOC be removed entirely?--SGCM (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I would drop TOC entirely, though having both {{TOC limit|2}} and {{TOC hidden}} is also a viable option. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

What did we learn from RfC?

As I get it, the consensus is that we should wait for opening comments and only open cases once any of these conditions are met:

  • case is filed inappropriately (no prior discussion, conduct dispute, wrong forum, etc.);
  • there is no reason to wait for remaining statements, as they are very unlikely to come.

Any amendments? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that's pretty spot on. We should probably poke the participants if they haven't left a comment in ~24 hours though, to ensure things don't take too long. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 03:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely disagree. The RfC above should be open longer to get more input from a wider variety of editors. DRN regulars should not close an RfC that is asking for independent editors to make suggestions. RfCs nominally last for 30 days. Closing the RfC after only a few hours gives the appearance that the DRN regulars do not like the outcome (even if that is not the underlying intention). The bigger issue here is: Will DRN be an open forum for any editor to contribute, or will it become a closed system that favors DRN regulars? Closing this RfC prematurely suggests that the latter is starting to happen. --Noleander (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it's kinda pointless to have it open for any longer, since consensus is clear, but I've reopened it anyways. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 04:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for re-opening it. It is always good to get input from "outsiders" who have fresh viewpoints. I'm sure input will taper-off eventually, and we can close it at that time ... let's wait and see how it goes. --Noleander (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Noleander, again "open vs. closed system"? Why are you so obsessed with this idea? The only time some degree of closed system was proposed here, but since was quickly rejected by alleged Cabal itself. And why you again misrepresent previous discussion in RfC question? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
This RfC is a very focused, narrow question; it was not intended to exactly represent the prior discussion. It was simply intended to solicit input from non-DRN regulars on a question about the DRN process ... nothing more. --Noleander (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Not only disconnected from any prior proposals or suggestions, but also vaguely worded the way that further would allow whatever troll wikilawyering the DRN process to death. What is worse, it looks like the question was specifically chosen to blend any positions between the polar "yes" and "no", so that the specific discussion this RfC comes from would be simply killed off by lots of input with general comments on whether there is a need to wait for all parties. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
that doesnt answer the fact some users say comment should be fine but dispute discussion should be preventedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

One good thing about RfCs is that they often bring in fresh, creative ideas. An situation that could be discussed in the RfC is: There are 3 parties, and 2 have commented but the 3rd has not; the missing party's position is clear from the article Talk page; can a drive-by editor who has read the Talk page post a "provisional" comment? That seems reasonable, but kind of clunky. I'm hoping some outsiders will have creative ideas for that sort of situation. --Noleander (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

as a outsider who is looking to take more part in dispute resolution after the big one i be trying to help resolve admittedly i was part of it but later on i then start to be come more neutral and support both sides and was the driving force of making changes by suggesting ways forward although one thing that will let me down and mean i cant ever be a volunteer is my english cause of dsylexica. but anyway...
This is a big suggestion i think for cases where 3 or more people are involved i dnt think this is done yet. basically you get as you say 2 agreeing, but you have the 3 party either disagreeing or not commenting.
I would proposed for in the case that a user disagrees they are informed that if they do not take part in mediation that there input on consensus would not be heard so the final outcome might not be to there liking
in the case of someone not agreeing or disagreeing i would suggest that it be practice to remove there name after the set time frame and inform the user since they did not agree or disagree they have been removed if they wish to take part they can agree on the talk page with mediator to allow them to take part
in the case of a no comment, i would say have a group of editors who would then look at prior dispute resolution that has taken place read the user who has not commented and summarise a position for them but leaving it for them to edit it in the future again with agreement form the mediator
i think the major problem of any dispute not getting mediator getting involved because of users not agreeing to take part, or not commenting will only result in it getting escalated, same with all cases should be assigned a mediator with 24 hours of being opened regardless if it will be closed or not--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the 3 party situation: another scenario is where there are three parties A, B, and C. A is on one "side" and B, C are on the "other side". Say that A and B supply opening statements, so both "sides" are represented. Yet C has not commented yet (but has made his position clear on the article Talk page). In this situation: can a drive-by editor (who has read the Talk page and both opening statements) post a comment in the DRN case? It seems crazy to say "no, the editor is prohibited from providing input" ... that is why I'm hoping that "outsider" editors will give their views (on those kinds of situations, plus any other situations they can envision). That's what RfCs are for. --Noleander (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This comment is perhaps more philosophical that contributory, but I have some sympathy for both a open-DRN and a quasi-closed-DRN position. I am a strong supporter of the notion that this project, including the discussions here about this forum, is just another Wikipedia page, and is subject to the policies, guidelines, and conventions which are applicable to every other page in every other namespace at Wikipedia. Thus at its root this noticeboard is no different than any other Wikiproject. That is, IMHO, somewhat limited by the "rules" that we set for this project, but those rules are still bound by policy and guideline. An example: X makes a request, Volunteer Y immediately closes it. There is no question that Y's close is proper under the DRN "rules", but X reverts Y's close. If X and Y then get in an edit war over the close, Y is not immune from being sanctioned just because Y is enforcing the "rules" of this project. WP:EW applies just as much here at DRN as it does at, say (making mystic hand signs to ward off bad luck caused by speaking of the devil) Scientology. Such reverts do not happen here, however, nor have I seen them happen at any other DR forum where I've worked. Why? That's the quasi-closed part. Users, even highly experienced knowledgeable users, respect the implied authority of those who work here and the, for lack of a better term, sanctity of the forum. That's one of the reasons why I think it's a good idea for regular volunteers to identify themselves as such: it adds to the implied authority and sanctity of the forum. At the same time, I agree with Noleander that anyone who wants to help to deal with a particular case ought to be able to jump in and do so entirely arbitrarily and whenever they want to do so without having to go through an initiation ritual and being given a set of robes and a secret decoder ring. (I would like for uninvolved editors who do so to state their intention to join in on that basis, so the regulars here don't have to figure out whether it is an unnamed interested party or a neutral who has just jumped in, but that's a relatively minor concern. Also, by listing themselves as a volunteer, they won't confuse the case status bot. We cannot confuse the bot. The bot is good. All hail the bot.) When we have a disruption, we deal with it simply by calmly but firmly talking to the disrupter. I've wondered if it might not be of some benefit to appoint some powerless coordinators, such as was the case at MEDCAB, to have just a bit more implied authority to deal with DRN procedural matters, but so long as we have some folks around that can claim "I'm a regular participant here" that's probably enough. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC) PS: Those desiring an initiation ritual, set of robes, and secret decoder ring should apply, forthwith, to the Cabal (There is no Cabal! (Long live the Cabal!)). With enough service, you may also qualify for nifty titles such as Grand High Master and Potentate Supernumerary Plenipotentiary. TM — 14:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Your comments are very insightful. I agree that this "when can editors comment" RfC is a facet of a bigger question: Will the DR Noticeboard be open or closed? But that bigger question is too vague for an RfC :-) My opinion is that the DRN should stay wide open: Sanctity should be sacrificed, when necessary, to promote inclusiveness. If a case requires more formality, it can go to WP:Mediation. WP has a long history of egalitarian editing rules; and WP also has a history of alienating newcomers. That is why we should avoid DRN policies that would increase the authority (actual or perceived) of DRN regulars. -Noleander (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
there ways to solve those problems, DRN already applies it, templates, develpo template for DRN that allow a user to identify themself and the bot who they are and what there doing quick off the top of my head switch|drnvc=Volunter Comment|drnnvc=non voluteer comment|DRNdisc=Disputin comment and there could be plenty more template switch you could add--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
FWIW the current model is nowhere limiting the inclusiveness and participation. In fact my own example shows how hugely wrongheaded is the whole notion of "closed" current model of DRN. Throughout several threads above you depict me as a DRN regular forcing special powers for DRN regulars, but my first edit as volunteer on this page happened on August 1, 2012‎ at 22:38 — roughly 16½ days ago (or 11 days before I was named as a member of DRN Cabal). If this is the long and cumbersome path of becoming DRN volunteer, I'm not sure whether there is something to discuss about openness. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually nobody even tries to argue that all volunteers are welcome to participate. The question Noleander brought this RfC to answer is completely unrelated: whether it is appropriate to deliberately open cases with no single opening statement in cases when there may be some actual valid DRN case. And the problem doesn't boil down to other editors' participation, as DRN is already formalized by the "case status thing", and such opening, allowable or not, fly in the face of the process which is already here and maintained by bot. This is in fact the simple choice:
  1. Everything on DRN is free for all.
  2. Each thread on DRN is a dispute, which is supposed to be explained by parties first and handled once explained.
The first approach, which is the one Noleander promotes, is a good, viable, workable approach; but in the current installation of DRN process it contradicts to the instructions that are expressed in "Volunteering" guide and in autogenerated (and bot-generated) instructions. The second approach is the current implementation of the DRN, good or bad.
The actual difference is that first approach makes participation easier, while the second allows for gentler handling of disputes and helps to avoid unrelated discussions (discussions of topics the dispute is not about). Both of these benefits are currently needed, so the real question is whether we prefer participation over handling or vice versa.
If the first option is chosen, it must be implemented. If the second option is chosen, it must be explained in some kind of HOWTO, which would lower the bar of participation. Anyway, something must be done, as the current situation is self-contradictory. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
P.S.: can we please stop discussing "those desiring an initiation ritual, set of robes, and secret decoder ring should apply"? Nobody wants any special nominations, statuses and powers of DRN volunteers. Just check the rest of this talk page if you don't believe me. This whole topic is only forced by Noleander, and I can't get his rationale for putting it forward again and again. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
i might be misunderstanding but the way i read it is,, When a case is opened there should be no comments until the people invovled in the dispute make there opening comments. but i identify a potential problem on the solvenia current case wher ethe user submitting said the other editor removes soruced material and original research, i questioned the original research bit as i foudn it bit strange they be complaining about the removal of original research, but they meant to say insert original research so i dnt see why people cant comment as long as it not discussing the dios-pute until a medatior leads it--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Is there any reason you couldn't do that on his talk page? The whole issue was the wrong choice of wording. BTW, in this discussion you are mediator (volunteer in DRN's terms). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC) updated 21:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Here's my take on the way DRN should operate: not a free-for all. Since the change in structure (while I don't have the final numbers), DRN cases are addressed in a more timely manner, have greater participation by volunteers, thread sizes are smaller and take less time to resolve. I think this is a good thing, and changing back to a free-for-all approach would be a step backwards. If participation from parties we're waiting on comments doesn't occur within a day after it opening, we can just poke them again. Volunteers can make comments at any time I suppose, but we should encourage extensive comments to be made when all have commented. We need to take into account editing activity - we shouldn't wait on a statement from someone if they only edit once a month, if you know what I mean. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 01:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Overall, Wikipedia Dispute Resolution is a bit of a mess and we all know it. This is a new effort to do things differently. This discussion is a bit like pulling carrots out of the ground to see how well they are growing. I think that as long as we have a disclaimer about participation being voluntary and the volunteers having zero powers, we should be free to try different things to see how they work out. How about an additional disclaimer saying that this is an experimental work in progress? We could invite participants to make comments on the talk page about how they felt that the process went, what was confusing, etc. Would that satisfy the objections? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I was actually going to run a questionaire at the end of the month on all participants for August...maybe we could all discuss what would go into a questionnaire. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 01:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea. Let me know if you want any help with that. Or we could just start a new thread at the project-space (with some notifications to get some outside input. The more the better). Shooterwalker (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I would love to participate in wording questionaire. Just hope it won't be an IRC-only discussion again. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
There is a IRC discussion tomorrow. ~~Ebe123~~ on the go! 12:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
@SZ: One good way to establish the guidelines for DRN is for the WP community to first agree upon what the entire DR process will ultimately look like, and once that goal is etablished, then begin evolving DRN, Mediation, etc to that final state. How can we properly decide what incremental changes to make to DRN (or mediation, or RfC, or MedCab), unless there is a shared vision of what the entire DR process will look like at the end? For example, if the long-term plan was (I'm just making this up) that DRN eventually take over the roles of RSN and ORN and PVON, that goal would influence decisions on how the DRN process works. Another example: If the goal was that the WP:Mediation process loosen its acceptance criteria for new cases, that would impact DRN. I'm sure this "plan entire DR first, then implement plan" concept has been discussed before: maybe you could shed some light on what the outcome was when it was discussed before. --Noleander (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
IRC? Tomorrow? — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
That is the shortest post I've seen you make :-) --Noleander (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
BTW: if you were serious about IRC, I'll be off-wiki for the next 3 days, so I would not be able to contribute. --Noleander (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
! — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
:-) --Noleander (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
@Noleander: You know, for people without professional knowledge it is hard to agree on something that was never seen in action. Your connotation that DRN process should be agreed upon before it goes through trial is roughly equal to a proposal for students of Law to develop an efficient court system on their first year in university. Steven's approach differs in that he wants to avoid discussing and cementing the proposal before trying it, and it makes sense. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
[Sigh.] Please assume good faith and read my posts more carefully ... I'm really not a jerk :-) I was simply asking SZ: "Hey, you must have thought of setting up a long-term plan (about DR, not just DRN) ... how did the community respond when that idea was floated?" It is an honest question ... I'm genuinely interested. --Noleander (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't mean any bad faith on your behalf. The amount of discussion above makes it 100% clear that you are genuinely trying to improve DRN, and I've never questioned this actually. I probably misunderstood your comment or you misunderstood mine, but anyway I wasn't going to offend you and I'm sorry if I did. All I wanted to say that Steven tries to avoid massive discussion until there are some stats, which is different from your proposal from the first sentence of your comment. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I just looked through some of the DR project history to see if SZ (or anyone) had proposed creating a master plan for DR ... but I could not find such a proposal. I have seen the DR PDF report which has some good statistics on DR, which is an excellent way to start. Raw data is always good. But at some point it would be good to establish a community consensus on what the long term goal (for all of DR, not just DRN) is. Having that goal documented would help with the smaller DRN-only process-oriented questions. --Noleander (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That was my point: community discussion is premature unless there is data to discuss. Whatever clever or stupid the average Wikipedian is, he is definitely not proficient at dispute resolution, and probably bears false assumptions about the effectiveness of this or that approach. Unless there is comprehensive statistics on different models, all one can base his judgment on is his previous (averagely too small to be representative) dispute resolution experience and the aforementioned assumptions, which is just not enough to make an informed decision. I value the community input, but in the cases requiring some care and insight it is more likely to make things worse. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

  • My comments on the matter - I think only I know how I want to go about this dispute resolution improvement project - so I think I should speak for myself. I definitely have a master plan for DR (which is in my head), but Dmitrij is correct here, I prefer to have numbers that back up what I want to do before I announce my plan. DRN will be a major part of that plan, so we need to get things right here first. I'm compiling results of DRN from 1-15 August today, so I'll be able to provide an update thus far. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 01:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

"List of volunteers" vs. "Volunteers"?

Following up on the discussion above about the clarity of the Volunteer instructions: There is an ambiguity that should probably be rectified. "Volunteers" is used three different senses throughout DRN:

  1. An editor whose name is in the list of volunteers in the instruction pate
  2. Any uninvolved editor who provides input in a DRN case
  3. An editor who is a regular at DRN and often provides input (but may or may not be listed in the List of Volunteers)

A few things that could be clarified in the instructions are:

a) Must an editor add their name to the List before they can provide a comment in a DRN?
b) Are the Volunteer Instructions useful for (pertain to) only those editors whose names are in the List?
c) Do the editors listed in the List have any special powers or authority?

My understanding is that the answers are No, No, and No. Item (c) is somewhat addressed in the header at the top of DRN page, but it is not yet mentioned in the Volunteers page ... it should be. Item (a) should probably be made more explicit in the instructions; as written now, the Instructions could be read as requiring that a person add their name to the List before they can comment in a case. --Noleander (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I would support something similar to how WP:DYK handles volunteers. List the most active participants, but emphasize that there is no editor hierarchy and that anyone can participate and volunteer. The Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering page needs something similar to the following statement on DYK: "Any editor may volunteer and assist with DYK, simply by contributing to the department operations. There is no hierarchy, and no particular editor or administrator has authority over others... The following administrators have significant DYK experience, and currently are active in contributing to DYK's operations."--SGCM (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree. Peer Review, GAN, RfC all have lists of editors willing to help: but they have no special authority (and I don't think anyone would disagree with that same principle at DRN). So your point about mimicking text from DYK in the DRN instructions is a good one. --Noleander (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I added the following text to the list of persons in the Volunteer help page:

The list below identifies some editors that are willing to help out with DRN. Feel free to add your name; if you have any special interests (such as art or science) you may include those after your name. Editors listed here have no special privileges or authority. This list is used by a bot to perform some housekeeping and maintenance duties. The list may also be used to find someone willing to help with a DRN case.

I hope that is non-controversial; but if anyone has issues with it, feel free to tweak. --Noleander (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks good. Nice work.--SGCM (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree with this, though I think that it would be much better to shorten this to something like "If you want to volunteer on DRN, please consider adding your signature to this list. This is not required, but it helps bot with updating DRN's templates." — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Would volunteers not on the list have to change DR case status themselves, or should they wait till someone listed does it? And will any of this break the bot? --Xavexgoem (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Bot does these, and it doesn't respect manual changes. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
As long as it doesn't break it. But I think there are plenty of editors who want to "jump right in" and bypass /volunteering altogether. This might be silly, but maybe the bot can recognize editors' changes to the template and consider them a volunteer for that thread so it can still give accurate statuses. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
FWIW more accurate would be to consider volunteers whoever writes to thread and is not listed in "Users involved" in this particular (l2) thread. Such change would allow to eliminate the list (hopefully together with all the "privileged editors" chatter) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
That might result in unexpected behavior, like for instance when an editor asks why they weren't included in the list of participants, or when a blocking/proting admin gives their input. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
With no list no questions about listing are possible. Blocking admin is somehow alien concept here, and I see no reason not to call him volunteer unless he was involved with dispute. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
It was a specific example, but in general I mean people in the thread who (a) aren't on the list of disputants, and (b) aren't helping to resolve the dispute. Obviously, the bot shouldn't consider those people volunteers. However, there are people who are helping to resolve the dispute, but the bot will assume that the dispute is still unassessed because they're not on the list of volunteers. To resolve this problem, if it really needs resolving, the bot would consider people as volunteers on a per-thread basis if they change the status from unassessed to open themselves. That way, volunteers don't need to be on the list in /volunteering for the bot to do its clerking properly.
This partly obsoletes the volunteer list from a technical standpoint, rendering it merely convenient instead of essential, but it's still nice to have some explicit sense of community. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • For me, I agree with the sense of community point. It's nice to be listed somewhere - provides a little bit of recognition - something that was identified as a "need" in the survey - but we shouldn't make it mandatory ie: "If you do not add yourself, you cannot help here". Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 03:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Hence my suggestion. Currently, there's no documentation on how to open a case, and even if you do it seems that the bot overwrites you anyway. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm still coming up to speed on how the case state changes to "Open". Some questions: The bot will make that change to Open automatically whenever it finds any edit in the Discussion section signed by an editor named in the List, correct? And there is general agreement that it would be good if the bot could also make that change for uninvolved editors that are not in the List? Is there a problem caused if an editor manually changes the case status to Open? Editors are expected to manually change the status to states like Resolved, so is there a specific reason uninvolved editors cannot manually change the state to Open? If an uninvolved editor, not in the List, manually changes the state to Open, does the bot undo that state change? Identical issues came up in thread below; so ignore these questions. --Noleander (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Question on title of the List

The title of the List is currently "Volunteers". I think that title needs to be improved somehow, so that readers don't get the impression that that list is exclusive. That list includes some of the volunteers (those that have chosen to identify themselves & have the bot work with their identities). But there may be volunteers who have chosen to not place themselves on the list (or are not aware of it). The biggest problem is that the title "Volunteers" may lead drive-by editors to think that they must add their name to the List before they can provide a comment. I changed it to "Some editors who volunteer" but that change was reverted back to "Volunteers" by Czarkoff. Any thoughts on what a better name could be? --Noleander (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

To explain: I believe the paragraph below the title explains the issue right. I was changing section name because I saw a title I though akward, but if it makes sense for anybody else, I wouldn't oppose reverting my change. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
How about "frequent volunteers" or "active volunteers"? It implies that everyone can volunteer, and that the list is only one of frequently active participants.--SGCM (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Those are better than plain "volunteers". Plain "volunteers", to many readers" will mean "the volunteers". Active or frequent are tempting, but do not seem accurate: some people could put their name in the list and never participate. Note that there is a category Category:Wikipedians who assist at the dispute resolution noticeboard .. and that has a name that does not run ashore on the rocks of "volunteer". Some ideas:
  1. Active volunteers
  2. Frequent volunteers
  3. Some editors who volunteer
  4. Editors that can be contacted for help
  5. Editors who have offered to help
  6. Wikipedians who assist at the dispute resolution noticeboard
  7. Regular volunteers
  8. Editors willing to act as volunteers
  9. Some volunteers
  10. [eliminate the section name entirely to avoid this problem]
1 and 2 are not accurate. 7 is terse, but implies a special kind of volunteer. 4, 5 or 10 seem most attractive of the bunch above. --Noleander (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
User Xavexgoem suggests that the section title "Volunteers" is relied upon by a bot. Yet there is a comment which says "please don't remove this comment (used by EarwigBot)"; and that comment is located adjacent to the Shortcut definition WP:DRVOLUNTEERS. Does the bot use that comment? or the shortcut? or the section title "volunteers"? --Noleander (talk) 01:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The bot seems to be Earwigbot. The source code has the code:
   self.volunteer_title = cfg.get("volunteers",
                                       "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering")
 .....
    marker = "<!-- please don't remove this comment (used by EarwigBot) -->"
        if marker not in text:
            log = u"The marker ({0}) wasn't found in the volunteer list at [[{1}]]!"
Which seems to indicate that the bot is looking for the comment "please don't remove this comment" rather than the section title. So the section title can be changed without impacting the bot, correct? --Noleander (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
It can be, but it shouldn't be changed to something that not all editors on the list agree to, or at any rate doesn't change the essential meaning of it. Otherwise, they might remove themselves from the list not realizing that the bot won't recognize them as volunteers. I suppose what I should've done instead of blanket reverting you was clarify the description of the list. I'll do that now. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the purpose of this section in the Talk page is to discuss if there is a better name for that subsection. The title "volunteers" by itself suggests that the list is definitive, and that one must add one's name to it before commenting. The text at the top of that page says that a volunteer is anyone that helps out: regardless if they are listed in the List. There is no other noticeboard in WP that has a formal title for those that participate. Using "Volunteer" with a capital letter could give the wrong impression, no? Granted, some explanatory text can be added under the title to clarify it; but the question remains: is there a better title for that subsection that is more accurate and not misleading? Or, could that subsection title "Volunteers" be removed and just use the "Participation" title above it. --Noleander (talk) 02:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I totally see where you're coming from, make no mistake, and I agree. I posted a suggestion immediately above this section's header that allows non-listed volunteers to be handled by the bot if they change {{dr case status}} themselves. Participants is probably just as good as volunteers, and it doesn't change the meaning. I imagine the bot looks for {{user}} templates, so killing the header altogether probably wouldn't hurt. I'm not sure, though. --Xavexgoem (talk) 03:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
That would be fine ... sounds kind of clunky, but it is better than plain "Volunteers". I'll go ahead and make that change to "Some of the volunteers". Another possibility is to just eliminate that subsection title entirely ... so the List would be directly under the "Participation" section. That would solve the problem, without any clunky wording. --Noleander (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I would prefer eliminating the list altogether (none of the proposals makes sense to me) and making bot collect the contents of category. This should be documented on the volunteering page. Since this approach would likely be a "no-go" (at least for Steven), I would suggest to keep the header "Volunteers" (or even change it to something like "Sign up!") and place a {{hatnote}} right below the header, explaining that this list is used by bot, and everybody willing to volunteer is strongly encouraged to sign up. Still, the list approach is very problematic, as, eg. if anybody from the list happens to become a party in a DRN case, the case will be marked as opened well before it will be read by any volunteer; at the same time, the drive-by volunteers don't count, so unlike the heading of the list this approach implies that only people on the least are volunteers. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
One thing I don't understand: It sounds like some of the concerns about this list are because the list is used by a bot, which changes the case status to "Open" automatically (when it detects a comment by a person in the List). Question 1: Can the volunteer just manually change the case status to Open? Q2: Volunteers have to manually change the case status to Resolved or Closed ... why, specifically, is it so important that we have a bot make that first state change to Open? Q3: What if an uninvolved editor wants to volunteer on a case, but chooses not to add their name to the List: can that user make a comment and manually set the case status to Open? --Noleander (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
If nobody from list has signed within the case, the bot will remove the status bit on the next run. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Why does the bot reset the case status if no one in the list has commented? What if a volunteer wants to help out with a case (open, mediate, and close it), but chooses to not list their name in the List? Why not just let editors manually set the case to Open, as is done when the case is set to Resolved or Closed? If an editor in the List posts a minor procedural comment in the case (e.g. questioning a spelling) does that cause the bot to set the case status to Open? --Noleander (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Because this was the task. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I was looking for the underlying rationale, but that software specification is informative :-) I'll go ahead and open a new thread in this Talk page to address this specific issue. --Noleander (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Assam - 17 hrs still unassessed

Can someone take a look at the Assam thread? thnx. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 12:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I looked into it right after its inception. Still, there's no single opening statements, so how do you want this to be assessed? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I posted a welcoming comment ... awaiting Opening statements. --Noleander (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
@Steven, and now you'll count it as assessed? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The bot is still ignoring you it seems...it came up as "new" in the template...I'll ask the bot op what's happening. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 14:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't add comments, just fixed the formatting. The bot is searching signatures, so it shouldn't have noticed me at all.
The more interesting question is how can the dispute be assessed with no single opening statement and only one party participating. The case was filed a day ago, and whatever is happening in "Discussion of Assam", it is nowhere close to dispute resolution — the other part of the dispute isn't known to be aware of this discussion at all.
So, dare I ask, what number would you assign to this dispute in "Avg. Response Time" column of your table you use to generate stats? 18 hours 31 minute? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, if that's when a volunteer first commented on a dispute. It balances out eventually - that's why it's an average. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 00:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you realize that this fact makes the figure in the table misleading and misrepresenting the board's effectiveness? I'm here since August 1, 2012, and I wouldn't say that the time of sensible (or legitimate in sense of IETF RFC1855) response (as opposed to unrelated pseudo-friendly chat) is anywhere close to those 2 hours. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Case template missing subsections?

FYI: The Zoophilia and the law case seems to be missing some Opening statement subsections. It looks like there are 4 parties listed, but no Opening statement subsections. No big deal: the nature of the dispute seems pretty clear, but I thought the template experts may want to know. --Noleander (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not related to templates or the script: the case was created manually (see edit summary, title, etc). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Question on bot reliance on the List of volunteers

The earwig bot helps manage DRN cases. Some of its jobs were specified in a bot request here. That specification asks the bot to rely on the List of editors who have self-identified as DRN volunteers. The purpose of the List is to help the bot automatically manage the cases: the bot needs to distinguish between a party and an uninvolved editor that is helping (one will be in the List, the other won't). However, this has the unintended effect of ignoring some actions of volunteers that have chosen to not be listed. If I understand the bot correctly:

  • If an uninvolved editor (who has chosen to not be listed in the List) opens a case, the bot will reset the case status to "needs attention".
  • If an uninvolved editor (who has chosen to not be listed in the List) closes a case, the bot will not fully perform some closing tasks.

The problem with this bot behavior is that creates two classes of WP editors: those in the List, and those not in the List. The editors in the List have, in effect, special permissions (to open or close a case) that non-listed editors do not have. That seems contrary to the spirit of WP. I'm wondering if there is some way to improve this functionality so that the bot still does its automated work, but it does not treat two classes of editors differently? For instance, what is the harm of letting anyone (or any non-party) open or close a case? Instances of abuse will be rare, and readily identified. That seems preferable to undoing the actions of volunteers who have chosen to not place their names in a certain List. --Noleander (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

BTW: This same issue was addressed, in another context, above in this Talk page by users Xavexgoem and D. Czarkoff (their comments included some possible solutions). I'm starting a new thread so the discussion can be co-located and focused. --Noleander (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Personally I believe that the bot should look only at edits in Discussion of Example article, and search for editors who didn't sign and are not referred to via {{user}} above this heading. Manual changes of state, while seemingly solving the problem, don't have much effect, as it won't be reasonable to expect the awareness of the template, its meaning and syntax from "drive-by" volunteers. I would also note, that I'm not particularly convinced that comments of "drive-by" editors — people who are not willing to participate in discussion further — should count as opening the case for disputants' comments. If the "drive-by" editor decides to stay and keep an eye on dispute, he may list himself; if he doesn't want to add his signature to the list, it's his decision to declare himself a second class citizen, and it is not in spirit of Wikipedia to push someone beyond his will. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
To make sure I understand your suggestion: you're saying the bot should ignore the List, and instead permit Open/Close state changes by any editor that does not have their user name in the case's subsections above the Discussion subsection (and the bot would undo state changes by any editor with a username appearing above Discussion). Is that correct? If so, that sounds like it would resolve the problem. --Noleander (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Not exactly, but the way you put it seems by far better then my initial idea, so now I support exactly this approach. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
If/when you're requesting this change to the bot's behaviour, perhaps it would be prudent to ask for a shutoff valve for this behaviour as well? Some sort of invisible tag or comment with which you could enable manual status tracking, or revert back to recognizing listed volunteers only for a single thread. I'm no DRN veteran but I've seen issues at other venues that start with a list of a few "involved" editors and quickly become a focal point for a large discussion as extra editors come out of the woodwork with a stake in the outcome. It would be unhelpful for a bot to assume the extra participants are all volunteers in that scenario. Perhaps that type of scenario is not a concern here, though. Just food for thought. BigNate37(T) 22:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the DRN process (or bot) should distinguish between a "volunteer" and an "extra editor". All editors that help at DRN (that are not parties) are volunteers. WP has a fundamental policy that all editors have equal powers (except for a few select groups like admins, arbitrators, etc). Although automating some DRN processes is a good goal, the automation should not establish a new class of editors (those listed in the Volunteer list) that have special abilities (the power to open and close DRN cases). I think there are several solutions available that meet both goals: enable the automation and treats all volunteers equally. --Noleander (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Well in my mind the only real distinction between editors at DRN are those who are party to a dispute and have a stake in the outcome (type 1), and those who are trying to help the disputing parties to come to agreement (type 2). The DRN concept of an "official" volunteer is simply someone who has disclosed being type 2 to the bot and nothing more: this is the sense I intended when using the term. BigNate37(T) 01:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The reason for the list is for two reasons - to build a sense of community (they "belong" to something - similar to a wikiproject) and the bot recognises them as volunteers, therefore requiring less messing around with templates for new volunteers. We make it easy, so all the volunteers need to focus on is resolving a dispute. I don't think it creates different classes of editors - it's just to make things easy. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Steven, doesn't WikiProject Dispute Resolution satisfy the need in sense of community? Or oddly named user category? This role of the list is redundant. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree with DC that we already have the DR project ... that is, by definition, a community. --Noleander (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
@SZ: Can you think of a process the bot could use that would let uninvolved editors (who have chosen to not add their names to a list) open & close cases? --Noleander (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I think the bot/list is probably the easiest process. Plus, it also allows uninvolved editors to comment on disputes they observed, but were not named as parties in; in other words, as witnesses, not "volunteers" per se. Also, as a new volunteer, I'd really rather not have to mess around with templates when opening a case; I was confused enough with procedure at first as is, I'd prefer not to have to learn more! Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I hear what you are saying: But the way the bot is set up now: if an uninvolved editor (not on the List) wants to act as a volunteer, and manually sets the case to open, the bot reverts that change and resets the case to unassessed. That is contrary to WP principles which hold that all editors have equal powers (except for those classes already approved by community-wide consensus, such as admins etc). My point is: It is easy to tweak the bot so it does not revert the actions of uninvolved editors (not on the list). The bot could still automatically set the case state to Open to cover the situations Zaldax describes above. --Noleander (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Wait, really? I didn't realize the bot reverts manual changes; you're absolutely right then, that should be changed. I'd support that tweak. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

On hold status

DRN needs an "On Hold" status for cases where one party has agreed to participate, or has already started to participate, but is busy in the near-term. An example is the Talk:Jolla case, the remaining editor has promised to respond, but won't be available until the end of this week. I'm not sure how to implement it without messing up the table and bot.--SGCM (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Could the existing state "This request has been inactive for some time" be re-purposed to meet this need? There are already quite a few states. Maybe the "This request has been inactive for some time" state could be re-phrased to "This request is waiting for more input" and the explanation could read "The case is waiting for more input from parties or volunteers. This may be because a party is not currently available, or due of lack of attention." Comments in the case's Discussion section could give the particulars. --Noleander (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
That sounds like a good fix; I can't think of any problems that could arise from that re-phrasing. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, I wonder if the bot is entangled with that state? Does the bot automatically set that state? Would the bot malfunction if we re-defined the state per the above recommendation? I hope not: the bot should be a help, not a hindrance, to improving WP. --Noleander (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
We could always test it and see what happens. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Would it be possible for the bot to freeze the time count for On Hold cases or whatever the rephrased status is? Until the case is reopened or continued, of course.--SGCM (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I would note, that I would prefer closing such threads and reopening them once the parties are ready. The only, yet IMO sensible rationale is that the parties may refine their comments based on previous discussion, which my help volunteers with assessing dispute. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Header/instructions contradiction

The blue-box instructions at the top of WP:DRN starts with "It [this board] 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. The noticeboard volunteers will either help you resolve it here, or direct it to another venue if that is more appropriate." but then Guide for participants has multiple statements that it is only for escalation from previous attempts at resolution elsewhere. That means it's explicitly not "a first stop" for any dispute. And if one does try to start here first for various reasons, one will be bounced somewhere else instead (and the intro does say that). I don't have any concern about the scope, but want the instructions to be self-consistent and consistent with whatever the scope is. How about "This board is primarily intended to provide assistance with disputes that are already being discussed on other pages. However, we can also provide assistance with understanding the dispute resolution process, so if you are not sure what to do with your dispute, please post it here."? DMacks (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the statement is problematic. As I understand it, there is no true "first" step in dispute resolution. Dispute resolution can also start on 3O instead of DRN.--SGCM (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is an apparent contradiction. The statement "the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page before" could be read to mean that DRN is the second stop. One simple way of mitigating it would be to change "the first stop" to "a first stop", which would indicate that there are multiple first stops. (Note that it already says "a first stop" in one place). Another solution would be to change the wording from "first" to something like "early" or "initial" or "preliminary". So maybe one of:
  • "a first stop for all disputes "
  • "an initial stop for all disputes "
  • "an early stop for all disputes "
  • "an initial forum for all disputes "
  • "an early forum for all disputes "
or something like that. --Noleander (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
It appears that one cause of the wording problem is that DRN is playing two roles: (1) any dispute can be brought here to be directed to another forum; (2) but only some disputes are resolved here. So the wording "first stop for all disputes" is emphasizing role (1), whereas the "must do Talk page first" and "we dont do behavior" are applying to role (2). --Noleander (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
"Early" seems to work best in the context, as it's broad enough to cover editors using DRN as first, secondary, or third stop. "Initial" is too similar to "first." As for "preliminary," DRN is sometimes used as a preliminary forum, but not always. Most of the disputes that are brought to DRN are small enough that they are resolved here, without ever heading further to MedCom or ArbCom.--SGCM (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed it to "an early stop for most disputes .." and " an early step to resolve content disputes ...". Note that I changed "all disputes" to "most disputes", in addition to changing "first" to "early". Feel free to revert or tweak. --Noleander (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks great! Thanks for everyone's wordsmithing. DMacks (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Help needed

Hey all - noticed that a few new cases still haven't been looked at, and a few threads have been open front a while. Could someone take a look over these when possible? I'm currently on holidays with an iPhone only so typing is a bit tough. Cheers. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 10:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for documentation: volunteer recusal

I would like something made clear in our documentation, but I am not quite sure where it should go. If someone who is involved in a case at DRN has a problem with the volunteer, he/she should know that they can ask for a new volunteer. Somehow we need to fit in an explanation that there might not be another volunteer willing to jump in, and some wording to discourage using this to wikilawyer when things aren't going your way. Suggestions? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The most appropriate place to document the possibility to replace volunteer is probably "Guide for participants" at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Header. I would note that a special switch for {{DR case status}} (eg. "replace") should probably be implemented for this. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I think such a procedure would be too prone to wikilawyering, and I haven't ever seen this happen at DRN. I think we should just leave it out. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 03:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Per-case subpages poll

This discussion was moved from the temporary fork of this page, which can be found now at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Parallel history

Given that the topic was mentioned, I would like to poll for opinions about changing DRN process again. I propose to use AfD-like per-case subpages, which would be transcluded to WP:DRN. Apart from everyone's consent, this would require changes to the bot and to the case filer. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If cases were subpaged, we'd need to get around the watchlist issue - the benefit of DRN at present is that you can see all changes to the noticeboard - so if discussion goes out of control, we notice it easily. If it's subpaged, only those who watchlist it can see it. I dunno if that would work well. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 03:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't suppose that WMF just happens to have the oft-requested "watch a section instead of an entire page" feature in its pocket? I didn't think so. Could something be worked out with subpages that are transcluded into a central page? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Szhang, if the cases are subpaged, it is important that the subpages are individually transcluded onto the mainpage, so that the appearance of a new case appears on the watchlist of the main DR page. The regulars should then be expected to know about <manually watchlisting cases, if that is what they want to do. This beats the downside of having all discussions on the one page, which is that process discussions hide the activity of case discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Guy, is that really oft-requested? My immediate guess is that on a technical level, it would be most easily achieved by having every secton as a transcluded subpage and using an invisible file structure. Just subpage the specifically-focused interesting sections. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes. It is often requested. The last time I talked about it with some of the developers they said it was often requested but not easy to do. We were taking about the fact that I really can't watchlist a particular WQA case or Village Pump question, because there are too many people adding to other sections, and everybody though that was a problem worth fixing. I spend my time programming 4-bit microcontrollers with 64 nybbles of RAM, so my idea of "hard to do" may be a bit skewed. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I specifically referred to AfD, as there is a working implementation there. We can take that with minimal changes. Though this layout would require a bot with no bot bit set. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I recommend MfD or RfA as a model, where the subpages are transcluded directly into the main page, not via a daily log page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, we are talking about the same concept referring to it differently, aren't we? Each case should be a page, which is transcluded into WP:DRN. The volunteers are notified by transclusion edit then. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you and I seem to be saying the same things. I just mention that AfD has an extra level that is unnecessary given the number of cases. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
When the cases are transcluded to the DRN page, this is seen on watchlists. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As of now the WP:DRN is 194,266 bytes long, and this aspects makes it difficult to use for users with slow connections. (I'm currently accessing Wikipedia via mobile internet, and the load speed of DRN and subsequent edit conflicts make using it troublesome. I believe that yesterday I had an average of 1½ edit conflicts per my edit.) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Poll

Do you support or oppose making DRN cases separate subpages of WP:DRN, transcluded to the WP:DRN itself?

  • NB. The above depends on the assumption that the current amount of traffic seen on this page's watchlist is problematic. I'm starting to doubt this assumption per Franamax and Xavexgoem below. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - at least until the end of August - as DRN is currently undergoing a trial to see if the changes that were implemented at the start of the month had an effect on DRN's effectiveness. I do realise that the pages will be transcluded in a similar fashion to the way that DRN is structured now, but I still worry that watchlisting will be an issue. The whole point of DRN is to make it easy to file disputes, and easy to volunteer. In my opinion, the fact that anyone (not just regulars) can watchlist DRN and be updated on the progress of a case as it progresses is a good thing, not a bad thing. I think we should wait for the results of August before we do anything else, but in my opinion this may cause more issues than it resolves. I'm always flexbile though, but I do not understand the rationale for this change. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The above is my opinion as a fellow primarily, because such a change at the present time would impact my research as DRN is undergoing an experiment. It reflects my opinion as a volunteer as well - but I thought it'd be silly to sign under both usernames. My views are always my own however, I just see things differently depending on how I look at it. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Veto Please conduct discussions concerning DRN at its designated talk page. It's not appropriate, when this page itself is in question, to be conducting structural discussions about the DRN page. Alternatively, is it time to moce the whole converstaion over to MFD? C'mon people, work with us here. Franamax (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I decided to be WP:BOLD and just move it. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

And I decided to be WP:BOLD and collapse this part of the discussion, as it disrupts the poll. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Good idea. I guess they can just call us the Bold Brothers... :) --17:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I, Franamax, support the boldness of this product and/or service. :) Paid for by Citizens for a Bold Internet Franamax (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Waiting until after the end of August is fine. I just looked at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. I happen to be already watching Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Insult File and it works perfectly. My watchlist shows me if anyone votes on the MfD I am interested in without showing me the other MfDs. If we copy the way they do it, can we lose the dates? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I'd be in favor of this for many venues, but for DRN especially. Discussions here tend to be a bit more on the involved side, and it would help to be able to focus on specific ones to keep track of, for the same sort of reason it's helpful at deletion venues -- only more so here. Watchlisting has become pretty useless for keeping track of anything, really, on "prolific" discussion pages (for lack of a better word), unless you've specifically watched a page for the purpose of keeping abreast of new discussions. That's far from the primary purpose of watchlisting, but people interested in that will still see new transclusions (discussions) added anyway, by simply keeping the main DRN page watched. PS. I can't see a change this grand being implemented before the end of August anyway, even with total support, so polling now seems fine. Equazcion (talk) 18:01, 13 Aug 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, with the proviso that we let Steve do his thing first. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- Mostly so parties can manage their Watchlist more effectively (that is, their Watchlist would not get pinged when other cases are commented upon). Of course, we should wait until after August so SZ's DRN research effort is not impacted. Plus, there may be two or three ways to implement these subpages ... so there may be a need for an evaluation of the alternatives. SPI, PR, and FAC seem to use the same system. GAN uses another approach: it puts the subpage under the article page (not under WP:GAN), but that may not be possible for DRN because the dispute may span several articles. --Noleander (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Steven Zhang in his WMF account. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 19:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support provisionally, pending the results of Steven Zhang's trial period. If at the end of the trial circumstances indicate it might be useful, then I wouldn't mind seeing it go ahead. John Carter (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral because I don't have a huge stake in this, but I'll be more likely to just ignore DRN in future I think. Being able to watch what's "hot" as I updated my watchlist, and to click on one button to look at the page history (both DRN and talk) and get an overview of what was going on was a big plus for me. Maybe in your discussions with whatever botop implements this you could ask for a sort-of shadow page of sub-pages, so that I could try to use Related changes? But more likely my attention will just drift away and less chance I would try my hand at getting involved. Myself, I never saw a huge problem with keeping all talk on just the one page. Franamax (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Is this really necessary? Get rid of the transcludes and tada! You have MedCab, which we just marked historical. You're already half way there. On an even whinier philosophical note, there's an odd shift by making the disputes isolated: it seems less communal, somehow. But I feel for anyone who has an edit conflict (granted, AN/I has been doing fine for years). I guess what I'm saying is: "per Franamax". Xavexgoem (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)