I tried filling in the template to start a new DRN posting, it blanked my work out five or six times before I tried doing it manually. Not sure why, might be a browser issue (currently using Explorer). WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex18:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
If you were doing it by editing the full page, you probably got whacked by edit conflicts. I suggest turning on Twinkle and/or wikEd (I don't remember which does what) and using the “New Section” button instead. —Kerfuffler19:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
@D Czarkoff, it may be that my version of Explorer isn't handling JS, that was the link/page that I used that kept eating my work.
@Kerfuffler - I didn't hit an EC when editing, I edited the top (Steelers) section and cribbed the section headings. Had to do it because the link DC includes kept erasing what I typed out instead of accepting/submitting it. Might be an option to have a more manual, less java-reliant option for people like me. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex20:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Should the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (DRN) guidelines be modified to prohibit editors from commenting on a dispute until after all parties to the dispute have submitted Opening Statements in the DRN case? --Noleander (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
No - DRN, like all WP noticeboards, should invite comment from any editor, at any time. No other WP noticeboard (RSN, ORN, etc) has an Opening Statement requirement. No case can come to DRN until after the dispute has been thoroughly discussed on a Talk page: that Talk page will have a good summary of the party's positions. The Opening Statements are convenient, but are not a requirement. If one party never submits an Opening Statement, the DRN case would be suspended indefinitely. This proposal would turn DRN into a semi-formal mediation process - yet WP already has a WP:Mediation process which requires opening statements. DRN, in contrast, is supposed to be an informal, lightweight "first stop" dispute resolution noticeboard. Finally, this proposal is another in a long line of suggestions which have the effect of elevating the status of regular DRN volunteers, because only regular volunteers have the time to continually check the DRN case and detect when the final party has submitted an opening statement. "Drive by" editors only visit DRN occasionally, and this proposed limitation would prevent them from contributing valuable suggestions. --Noleander (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes and No - On the one hand it's best to curtail unnecessary rambling until all parties to the problem have had their opportunity to speak, but on the other hand if we've already ammased 5k of wikitext without the parties to the dispute presenting their evidence, it would feel like to the last party that they were being pre-judged. Hasteur (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes: it would be a waste of time if all parties are not even interested in taking up the venue (and some have just not responded in negative yet or didn't care to respond). Drive by editors' comments can always come under WP:IAR, so Noleander's point would not be a problem. --lTopGunl (talk)19:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
No to prohibitbut yes to discourage doing it arbitrarily or stupidly. We've all seen listings where the proper response was clear from the initial posting, generally because (a) it is conduct not content, (b) there's been no discussion, (c) it's the wrong venue, or (d) the problem has resulted from the requesting editor being completely wrong, completely clueless, or both. There's no need to wait for the other editor's response in those whack-a-mole type situations, if for no other reason than we're not likely to get a response in a considerable number of them. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
No way!!! There are numerous disputes with many editors involved and there is often no reliable way to know whether particular editor is lurking to sabotage dispute resolution, or he just genuinely retired from the dispute. What is the purpose of this RfC? Has anybody ever suggested otherwise? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
No We don't want people to deliberately fail to add their Opening Statements in order to stall the case. There might be a case for asking people not to add general comments for (say) 24 hours after the DRN was filed in order to give time for those opening statements to be made - but we can't have that be an open-ended matter. IMHO, that could be a voluntary suggestion rather than an actual rule. SteveBaker (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
That is why we should make them add the statements first.. so that we know that if some one wants to stall and is not interested. It will waste every one's time if they stall it later and do not participate in the discussion and over run the results by reverting. This also replies to the statement by Binksternet below. The involved can still stall the discussion by not adding their comments while the mediators and a single side discuss and finally decide that it is going no where because only one party is discussing. This is infact a way to find out who is gaming, quicker. Czarkoff does have a valid point about some one getting listed just to stall, but then names can always be removed if people don't respond at all. --lTopGunl (talk)21:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
No. Such a rule would permit a new sort of gaming, the withholding of opening statements from involved editors. TransporterMan has the right stance. Binksternet (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
NO Just looka t my comment tonight there was DRN filed but the input by the user would have made it seem there complaining about original research being removed when in fact there complained about it being inserted, if i had not commented it might not get off the ground, i dnt see why editors should not be able to add comments, as long as they do not pretend to the acutally dispute, teh dispute discussion should start once all agree--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment - My impression from the comments so far is that:
Comments about the substance of the dispute should, ideally, wait until Opening statements are made by all parties.
There may be situations where a party does not post an Opening statement (on wikibreak, or not interested, or gaming the system) and that should not prevent the case from moving forward.
Comments regarding procedural matters (e.g. questioning if the case is appropriate for DRN) are acceptable before all the Opening statements are available.
Uninvolved editors who do not regularly visit DRN, but have read the case's Talk page history, should feel welcome to provide a comment at any time, even before all Opening statements are available (but such a comment should note that the Opening statements were not all available at the time of the comment).
No to prohibit. We don't need that kind of formalization on this NB, as per TransporterMan's comments here, and yes, gaming is also a very real possibility.(olive (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC))
No to prohibit, per TransporterMan and Binksternet, etc. Discourage, maybe; but we have to avoid any fresh ways of gaming the system! Pesky (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Should the consensus be placed in the Volunteers Instruction page?
It looks like there is pretty strong consensus that (1) substantive comments should generally not be made before all parties have submitted opening statements; and (2) there are some situations when comments are okay before opening statements (e.g. procedural notes, drive-by knowledgeable editors, when apparent that a party will not respond, etc). Question: Should a brief note be added to the volunteer instruction page stating this guidance? My opinion is: The issue of whether or not to post before all opening statements has come up many times, and it will come up frequently in the future. We should capture this guidance in writing so the question doesn't have to be re-hashed over and over. Thoughts? --Noleander (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I added a blurb into the Volunteers instruction page on this. Feel free to tweak the wording there if it needs improvement. --Noleander (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I created a template to make a friendly reminder to involved editors when responses don't seem to be forthcoming or have stopped. This can be placed on the talkpage where the originating discussion is directed to from the DR/N filing. Template:DRN participation ping, use {{Subst:Template:DRN participation ping}} for an automated signature. Volunteers, please feel free to edit this to your liking! It can be renamed, re-edited and/or additonal information added. It still needs to be added to the Template DRN category.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Probably placing {{subst:DRN participation ping}} and {{subst:DRN participation ping possible fail suggest formal mediation}} is enough. BTW, as the templates are supposed to be substituted only, I would merge them. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Why merge them? They are designed for seperate situations? Is the suggestion that a single template could cover all possible scenarios? Hmmmmm. That is a good suggestion. Is that what you mean?--Amadscientist (talk) 11:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
A volunteer is a listed editor at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering. Any editor may add themselves to this list. A bot uses this list to recognise those on the list who first comment on a dispute to open the case. You may search the list for volunteers, however...one does not have to list themselves to help out on a DR/N case, but only to open and close cases as an unbinding mediator. If you wish to search through the history of cases for a specific editor who has not listed themselves, use the search function for "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive". It seems we don't have an index yet.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Could someone look into problems with the project page. Somehow a million lines had seperated text in an odd manner when I got here today and another editor attempted to fix it (and basicly did) however, now the collapse boxes do not collapse.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
IE. Here's a screen shot. I have no option to hide or show. I have restarted my computer but another editor has also stated they have no issue so it has to me a propblem on my end. It started right after an editor corrected the page from a test made by another.
I have taken the bold step of closing the Self Determination DR/N at this time as the wrong venue. The project has a working group for this subject and this has made the rounds through enough noticeboards with walls of text. It might be percieved as being close to a resolution but I would argue there is still one editor from that working group that may believe that outside intervention is better then working it out from within. Feel free to slap me around a bit if others disagree, but enough is enough. They have set up their own group and this editor believes that is the proper venue for this right now.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Randy Savage
What was someone able to file the Randy Savage case without filling out all of the fields? Can we make it so that this cannot happen? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
The description that I had written for the failed case status may need tweaking. Concerns over the ambiguity between the two have twice been brought up. The failed case status, proposed by Czarkoff, was meant for cases where no consensus was reached and thus cases where the dispute resolution process had failed. The wording for the description may need to be changed to better convey that.--SGCM(talk)09:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
A couple of things. First...please don't change the status on a case another volunteer has closed. (by the way 24 Game was reopened at the request of an editor who was too busy to get to it) Also, change the wording all you want. Be bold and see where it leads, but accept adaptive changes or discussion. However, the entire page for volunteers is a little weak. More instruction on the proper procedure may be needed directly on the volunteer page and guide. Right now the guide states; "click the volunteer button above...". What button? There is no button. That is an easy fix. But Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering lacks a clear guide to working a case by a newbie. So, with the advent of the proposal below, it may be best for the volunteer page to recieve some further attention staying within policy and guidelines and current consensus. I actually don't think changing the wording will matter if you don't change the precise cut off of a result. If a case is opened and no one participtaes, including the filing editor...I call that a fail. Fail does not mean the parties can't try again or can use another DR venue. I do support User talk:So God created Manchester making changes if he thinks they are needed, but I would ask them to not alter a case that another volunteer has closed without discussing it on the talkpage. This thread really doesn't count unless one likes being talked past. DR/N is like any other Wikipedia page. If you are bold and you are challenged, it just makes matters worse not to address the situation itself...not the side issue.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The case in question wasn't opened by a volunteer. There was no discussion in the case at all. The failed case status was meant to evaluate the number of cases that failed the dispute resolution process. If no dispute resolution through discussion was attempted, then it cannot be considered a failure of the process. As for changing the case status, I do apologise for my boldness. The status for cases are regularly changed from closed back to opened, so I did not think the edit would have been controversial. If there is an objection to the change, then as per WP:BRD, it is time to discuss.--SGCM(talk)21:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I am not discussing the opening. I am discussing the closing. I do not agree with your assement on what a failed case is. If you start something and you do not finish it and no ones cares to participate...that is indeed a fail and should be listed as such. The very fact that a case was opened is an attempt at DR/N. The process is not to blame, the fact that a case is filed and fails the attempt is. You need never apologise for being bold....you may need to for altering a DR/N volunteers decision and not discussing this directly. I actually do dispute your definition of failed vs closed. An opening from a close should still be mentioned on this talkpage as a heads up, but that is not what you did. You altered my reasoning for closing and that is controversial. I ask that you not do that again please.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
By the way...only the filing editor or participants can determine when the actual DR/N process has failed, not the volunteers. Doing so is a point of view that would be speculation on our part. The participants would have to raise the issue that the process was inadequate for their needs before a closing on the grounds of "Failure of the process".--Amadscientist (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I'll have to dispute that. As per this edit, I only changed the case status and never touched the closing statement, so the reasoning for closing was never altered. I actually agree that participants may need to indicate that the dispute resolution process has failed before closing a case as failed, although usually that is implied when a case has persisted for 7 or more days without a closure. This is one of the reasons that I changed the status of the case from failed to closed, no discussion had occurred so the discussion could not have failed. The original intention of the failed case status (Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 7#New case statuses) is to indicate cases where the process has failed, which is what distinguishes it from the closed status. If no discussion has occurred, no dispute resolution has occurred, and thus the process did not fail and is not at fault.--SGCM(talk)22:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
When you changed the closing status that changed the closing's intention. I purposely did not alter that for two reasons, to RESPECT your choice as a volunteer and not create a dispute on the Dispute resolution Noticboard. But I do believe, and stand by my comment, that changing the closing status, changes the closing volunteers intent. This should only be done as a collaborative effort (which I chose to "collaborate" with you on to keep this from escalating). As for the above discussion on the closings that you linked...clearly it shows:
failed The DRN case was opened and then closed, but the dispute remains; it is needed to separate cases resolved out of DRN (on talk page) and failures of DRN process.
This could serve the good wording for a "closed" status, but not for "failed". The wording describes procedural close, which does not indicate any failure in DRN process, so the word "failed" doesn't fit here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 05:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
As you've quoted, the failed status was meant to "separate cases resolved out of DRN (on talk page) and failures of DRN process." The failed status was originally only intended for instances where the DRN process has failed. I think the confusion over this stems from my wording of the DRN case status descriptions. This wasn't the first time that this issue has been brought up, and I apologise for all the misunderstandings that have happened because of it.--SGCM(talk)06:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
@Amadscientist: you know, "only the filing editor or participants can determine when the actual DR/N process has failed, not the volunteers" looks like a severe violation of logic. Definitely anyone can make judgement on whether DR process helped to form an enforceable consensus or not, and definitely all the participants are equal to the rest of Wikipedia editors (including volunteers) in their right of assessment of the discussion outcome. The split between "closed", "resolved" and "failed" statuses is in fact mostly needed for statistical purposes, and thus "failed" was supposed to be set for cases where the discussion didn't lead to any particular outcome to implement. The "closed" status was left as a fallback option for failed participation, premature cases, etc. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Seriously...that made no sense and even SGCM seems to agree that the point is, we as volunteers cannot make the assumption that the process itself has failed. It isn't our place and would truly be speculative. The only time I am aware of, where we as volunteers close as a failure of the process, is when the case filing is malformed by the filing editor.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Why can't we make these assumptions? Here we go about content issues, which are not anyhow subjective. FWIW, if we can't make these assumptions, we can't assess the dispute and can't help with it, so DRN should be closed immediately. The ability of volunteers to assess dispute and its state is the most basic, vital principle of DR forums. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 05:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
You can't state what another editor thinks, believes or percieves and for the process itself to have failed it would be from the perspective of the filing editor, not the volunteer. Perhaps you are confusing the actual process of DR with the "discussion" itself. Many times a DR/N discussion produces little to no consensus. The process still worked but the discussion failed to produce a resolution. This is where the volunteer guidelines need adusting. As it stands right now we are saying "process" and not "discussion" or even just "filing" or "case". Why would the DR/N case be a fail if the process itself didn't work? It isn't. That is why we would not call that a "fail". If you make the assumption that the process itself failed an editor then why not assume everything and just make a complete judgement without a discussion?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Usually the participants in a dispute will tell the volunteers whether or not a resolution has been reached or the process has failed. If the participants indicate the issue has been resolved, the case can be closed as Resolved. If that doesn't happen, and the discussion drags on for more than week without a resolution and consensus doesn't seem to be nearing anytime soon, then it can be closed as Failed. It's true that volunteers can't read the minds of the participants, but failure to reach consensus is implied by the length of the discussion and the inability to reach a resolution. For example, if DRN Case A goes on for two weeks, none of the parties are willing to make any concessions, and the parties give up on participating in the case, then it's reasonable to close it as failed.--SGCM(talk)06:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
FWIW I see no reason to avoid using my personal judgement over the changes in dispute. As you fail to provide any reason either, I suspect you also can't imagine one. If so, I don't see the point of your crusade. Otherwise please state the issue clearly. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
This describes the differences between the three case statuses and how they were intended to be used:
Dispute resolution is not attempted, because of lack of participation, lack of discussion, or wrong venue. The case is closed as Closed.
Dispute resolution is attempted.
A resolution is reached. The case is closed as Resolved.
An extended length of time has passed. No resolution has been reached and it is unlikely that a resolution will be reached. The case is closed as Failed.
The above is way off though. If the original intention was as above then more than just a mistake in wording occured because the first case is failed according to the current guidelines and that really makes sense. As I say below, we would call editors refusing to take part a "fail".
(edit conflict)Yes, but again there is a difference between the "Process of DR" (which is seperated in the DR consensus discussion previously linked) and the case or discussion itself. Part of the reason why we differentiate these is to better understand the impact of DR/N and how it worked and how it failed. The process of dispute resolution involves a number of things pertaining to procedure, like a filing form, or overly complicated rules etc, while the actual case and/or discussion is not procedural but simply didn't gain a clear consensus or continues or escalates. That is not the fault of the "process" but of the involved parties for one reason or another. Opening a case and then having all parties ignore it...is not a failure of the DR process. It is a failure of editors to be involved and that is indeed a failed DR/N. If an editor states that one particluar part of the process itself failed them....then it is not a "Failed" DR/N...it was the process itself that failed the editor. We should pay close attention to such claims and be quick to fix them if possible.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Wording
The current wording for a "failed" status is below. I have lined out the word I think is the main problem and replaced it (here as illustration):
This marks a discussion that was not resolved successfully and has been closed because of inactivity. This may be that the participants couldn't come to a consensus on the issues that were being discussed. The participating editors may have requested that the case should be closed. Dispute resolution was attempted, but the process discussion was not successful. To mark a case as "failed", change the status at the top of the case to {{DR case status|failed}} and post an explanation at the bottom of the discussion.
And here is the "Closed" status (which in itself is confusing and could well be changed to something like "inconclusive"):
This marks a discussion that has been closed, because the discussion is unsuitable for DRN. This may be that the issues are too complex, that prior discussion has yet to occur, or that another forum like WP:MEDCOM is more appropriate. If you think that any of these are the case, ask a few questions on the thread to see if others agree. Feel free to ask on the DRN talk page too. To close the discussion, change the status at the top of the thread to {{DR case status|closed}} and leave a comment at the bottom of the discussion.
So, to summarize the discussion from what I see, we have a dispute involving the DR guidelines in two seperate areas. First..what constitutes a "failed" DR/N and second, does the current "failed" status reflect this? Stemming from a change in status by a volunteer on the closing of a DR/N case by another volunteer we have encountered a slight discrepancy. First: If a DR/N case is opened and no one bothers to comment at all past the initial filing, what has failed? Did the dispute resolution procedure itself fail or did the editors fail to reach a consensus? Next: Do the status descriptions adequately state what is a fail vs what is a simple "close".
In answer to the first issue, I believe the DR process cannot be blamed when an editor succeeds in filing the DR/N case even if they make mistakes that can be fixed. If the DR/N filing was malformed to the point of being incomprehensible and unfixable...then we have a procedural issue. What we don't seem to agree on is whether or not this scenario (opened and then closed after no participation at all) is a failed attempt at DR/N. We already have consensus from all involved editors that after 7 days where a case was opened, a discussion begun and yet falls into inactivity is a "fail". I believe: Cases that have been opened yet never receive any participation are closed as "No participation - no activity at all" and are listed as failed. The filling editor tried but did not succeed and this is not a procedural issue.
In answer to the second issue: Do the status descriptions adequately describe which status to use. I believe there is room for improvement but they seem to state what is a failed and what is "Closed" (again the latter title could be improved) just that a word has stuck out to some and may be confusing the issue over what is a failure of consensus and what is a failure of procedure. Which status should be used for the failure of procedure? Consensus does appear to show that the current "closed" status is the appropriate status to use when a DR/N process itself has failed.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
The thing that stands out to me is, how long do we leave a DR/N case with absolutly no activity past the intial filing? For some reason I am assumming 48 hours, then we ping or remind the parties about the DR/N. I seem to remember this being discussed in the history somewhere. After notifying the involved parties I might be inclined to close after another 12 to 24 hours with no reply...unless the editors are clearly engaged on the talk page resolving the issue on their own (which would be resolved when acomplished) or are activley edit warring or engaging in bad conduct/behavior such as name calling, accusations etc., then it would be a clear fail.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
The worst part of this entire discussion is that this case should have been closed as a procedural issue as the talkpage contained only a small discussion and was not extensive enough. Perhaps some would have kept it open just because there was a discussion, however the one was so small another editor actually asked "What dispute?"...so, I should at least apologise for missing that fact and closing as a fail for no particpation/no consensus instead of "Closed for no extensive prior discussion!--Amadscientist (talk) 11:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Previously the grace period of 24 hours was discussed, though RfC above suggests that consensus is to close these right away and use archiving grace period instead. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
As I see it, there are three possible endings for a DRN case:
The case was opened, discussion occurred and some degree of consensus was reached. This is "resolved" case status.
The case was opened, discussion occurred, but no consensus was reached. This is "failed" case status (DRN process failed to resolve dispute).
The case can't be properly opened (no participation, no prior discussion, etc.), may not proceed (dispute resolved elsewhere) or should be closed for other procedural reason. As the DRN process neither failed nor succeeded, the case is simply "closed".
That is how it worked before this discussion, and I don't see any problems with this course of action.
The only problem with that is, the closing was originaly based on the complete lack of participation as the DR/N filing was succesfully made and did not constitute a procedural problem. So we still have to go by the current decsription and that says such a closing is a "fail". Could you elaborate on what you mean as "documentation" and how that would differ from volunteer guidelines?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I wrote the current description, and I will admit that the wording of the description is confusing. Any DRN that is closed without discussion is a procedural close, and is closed as Closed. If the discussion occurs, and it's resolved, it's closed as resolved, and if it's not resolved after a reasonable amount of time, it's closed as failed. The problematic phrase is "unsuitable for DRN," a more succinct and accurate description would be "and no discussion has occurred".--SGCM(talk)00:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
While I understand that you wrote the wording, it isn't that innaccurate from the consensus discussion that decided this particular guideline. A closing as failed was determined to be a filing that recieved no attention at all and was done so to seperate that type of closing from a purely procedural issue. The problem I see is just a single word used that uses the term "Process" and should really be replaced with "discussion' or "Consensus".--Amadscientist (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Closing filings that have received no attention at all is a procedural issue. I understand your argument, but my point is that all requests closed without a discussion are procedural closes.--SGCM(talk)22:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Disagree...and ask why you made a proposal that was implemented (this part of it)[1] and now claim it is not what you meant. I have no idea what you thought you meant just what was agreed on and the implemented proposal which was and is:
"failed - The DRN case was opened and then closed, but the dispute remains; it is needed to separate cases resolved out of DRN (on talk page) and failures of DRN process."
The wording means that if a case is opened and then is closed without resolution it is failed. This is supposed to seperate other closing such as procedural failure.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
The case in question was not opened by a volunteer. A case has to be opened by a volunteer (meaning that a volunteer has checked to make sure that a case meets all DRN criteria and has initiated the discussion, as per the current instructions) before it can be closed as failed.--SGCM(talk)02:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, that makes some sense and I think I remember you mentioning this before. This particular case was really unusual and I agree it was certainly a procedural issue from that and the fact that it really didn't have enough discussion as I discovered only after the fact. I usualy check that first but got off track with other issues.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Leave a dispute, take a dispute
Hey all. Got an idea to potentially increase volunteers, we can at least try it out. It was used in the early days of MedCab - when someone filed a request for mediation at MedCab, they were encouraged to help with another dispute. This can potentially do a few things, increase the pool of volunteers but may also enlighten those resolving someone else's dispute the importance of compromise and consensus-building, thus may make it less likely they will be in a dispute themselves in future. It wouldn't be mandatory, but perhaps we could start by sending out a bunch of invites to people that utilised DRN in August? In the DR survey, wanting to help in exchange for past assistance at DR was a common reason for volunteering, and we can at least see if/how it goes, but we need a long term solution to keep the numbers up, and this may be it. Thoughts? Szhang (WMF) (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Like the quid pro quo over at DYK (but not mandatory)? Interesting idea. It seems to happen naturally with 3O not infrequently. I'd say go for it. Writ Keeper⚇♔13:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I think it's a bad idea actually. Firstly, I would say that this indeed would "enlighten those resolving someone else's dispute the importance of compromise and consensus-building", which is itself enough to make it a very bad idea. (Wikipedia is otherwise prone to pushing people into compromises for the sake of compromise, which itself fosters conflicts and damages project more then disputes on their own.) This could also trigger WP:POINTy volunteer comments, vendettas and other stuff nobody wants to see at DR forum. As Steven notes, the payback-alike participation is already high, and (in my opinion) recruitment from 3O (where editors already have at least some content DR experience) would be a better option for DRN. 3O itself is a better place for fresh volunteers, and it itself does a good job of recruiting manpower uninvolved in DR, so I would be more comfortable keeping the current flow. FWIW I don't actually see any problems with current number of active volunteers – it exceeds the number of disputes and most of us are just idle here. I would care more about volunteer retention. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment - All editors should be encouraged to use the DR process and learn about DR/N for content disputes. There are enough editors working DR/N that we already know there are enough to deal with any possible issues from new volunteers attempting to take advantage by tag teaming etc. or revenge. This was discussed already and I actually thought it was not an issue for most.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Czarkoff, 3O is probably the best place to recruit for DRN. Quid pro quo is useful on DYK, but might lead to payback-like volunteering on DRN. An editor, angry at the resolution of their DRN request, may attempt to sabotage another request. Another option is to invite "drive-by" third party editors to regularly participate in DRN with a talk page message. --SGCM(talk)21:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I disagree where the best place is to "recruit" volunteers. But again, we seem capable of determing these situations. Why limit DR/N to only those users at 3RR? They are just as likely to be manipulating or gaming the system as anywhere else.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Nobody said "only". And of course I strongly disagree that users with prior experience in DR are as prone to misbehaviour as others, this statement doesn't make sense to me at all. As well as the idea that we should pro-actively invite people with prior dispute participation track to DR process and then cope with the consequent problems. DR forums are not exactly the best place to drag people into, and we should care retention more then recruitment. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 05:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
And yes, even editors involved with the DR process can misbehave and are indeed as prone to step out of line during discussions as any other editor.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd oppose this for a different reason. A large proportion of the editors (not all, but enough) who end up as plaintiffs (for want of a better word) here are here because they lack the skill set to adequately deal with conflict resolution. I'm not exactly sure we want such people inserting themselves into solving the problems of others. People who help resolve disputes should be people who are good at resolving disputes, not people who are good at getting into intractable disputes they need others help in getting out of. --Jayron3206:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, that I understand. So then what you are saying is...those that came here because they were involved in a dispute don't know how to resolve a dispute and therefore should not be mediating. That's a bit insulting to those that are here because they were involved and were not the filing editor or were the filing editor because that same dispute never got resolved for a number of reasons out of that editor's hands. It also seems to say that editors don't learn and grow or we don't accept or trust those that are trying. No...I stand with my support of the proposal as stated and don't like the idea of seperating editors into "DR worthy" and "Keep trying". I hear editors all the time talk about "Cutting their teeth" on the noticeboards. This is true with many editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I really thought that the suggestion from Szhang was to encourage those with disputes to help resolve disputes. (begin sarcasm) Man...that was a bad idea, trying to get editors to help each other. Why would anyone want to reach out and actualy help another editor? Geesh, that would be trying to improve the encyclopedia and make it a better, more enjoyable place for everyone. We can't have that. (end sarcasm) I know this example is pretty extreme and does not really illustrate what editors think here, but in a way it could be percieved that way. Some of the best intentions on Wikipedia are wasted to declined proposals. So to be at least congenial enough to get my point across let me try this: The proposal is to "Try it out" not implement permanently. The point is to test drive it and see what happens. I'm willing to trust Szhang to think of these things in good faith.
conflict resolution is a pretty rare skill -as seen by all the conflicts in the real world and perhaps even rarer on wiki as seen by the high drama and non -resolution of conflicts that occur over most of wiki space. i am skeptical of having much success saying "hey you are here in a dispute that you couldnt resolve, why dont you see if you help resolve this other dispute." that jusst seems like a recipe to turn this into another ANI cesspool with every tom dick and ahrry making comments that simply increase the heat without providing any additional light.-- The Red Pen of Doom13:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Again, not at all accurate. Being at DR/N does not mean one could not resolve a dispute. But hey....lets continue to tell the volunteers they have little value because they have been "involved" in a dispute here. Its funny..we have an accusation that just having to volunteer makes us "special" with almost magical powers and yet we are being told that indeed one has to be "Special" to work here"? Just really confusing. Anyway...we encourage...we don't discourage.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
There are a wide variety of skill sets that bring tremendous value to the encyclopedia, of which conflict resolution is one. I will stand by my assertion that such a skill set is rare both among the general population and on wikipedia. that an editor is lacking in a particular skill set is in no way telling someone that they have little value. Stating that Stephen Hawking does not have the skill set to be a productive addition on field to a professional football team does not in any way diminish the value that Stephen Hawkings skill sets have brought to the world. -- The Red Pen of Doom13:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
True, but IMHO "involved in a dispute" says little about ability to help resolve one. For example, being willing to take the heat of trying to fix an article to Wikipedia standards where there a person or persons (e.g. POV warrior) who prefers it as-is will inevitably make the editor who is willing to take the heat for the good of Wikipedia "involved in a dispute". North8000 (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
point taken - not everyone who comes here is lacking in the skill set. and in fact someone who frequently brings cases here rather than escalating on talk pages may be showing great signs of conflict resolution skills. however, if you were looking for a way of maximizing your chances for finding people with dispute resolution skills rather than people who might tend to increase conflict, I dont think that selecting from the participants who come here would be where I would bet my money. -- The Red Pen of Doom14:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Another point which reinforces yours is that I'm guessing that about half of disputes are where there is a real world contest where the contestants see something to be gained by tilting the Wikipedia article. (what Wikipedia overly-simplistically calls a "controversial" topic). So, odds are that those on at least one side of the ensuing dispute are letting their real world interest interfere with or override the objectives of Wikipedia, which is not a good credential. North8000 (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Is there anything wrong with giving personal invitations to volunteer to people who have been here and shown they have an aptitude? clearly it would have to be after their case has been closed. -- The Red Pen of Doom18:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Men's Rights
The Men's Rights case has the potential to become quite heated, so I would like to invite more volunteers to get involved if possible. Thank! --Guy Macon (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Having observed the previous incarnations of this sore spot, I'm keeping out of it, but strongly suggest that 1 volunteer take charge as the lead and the others be assistants. There's been cracks and small ledges in consensus used in the past to cause any potential solution to fall into the rubish heap Hasteur (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
(Apologies for the length) By way of clarification (and I'm speaking here as an editor with a long history of intervening in disputes as an outsider not as a sysop) - there's a serious issue with dismissing a source by describing it as "an obvious advocacy book" when it is an academic piece (there may in fact be BLP issues involved with labelling academics' work in this manner - but that's a separate matter). The position of this board in dispute resolution ladder/chain needs to clear in the mind of volunteers here. If there is a issue with a source you should be saying "lets send these sources to RSN for outside opinions" - not doing what Guy did above. Let me reiterate I have no problem with Guy - I know he was/is acting in good faith and this is not personal at all. My concerns come from my work at arbitration enfocement. Areas under probations need to be handled not only with care but with regard to what that probation was caused by - and what measures have been implemented to reduce friction/monitor sourcing etc. In the case of men's rights one of the issues causing the probation related to a lack of academic sources (others included tendentious editing, meat-puppetry, off-site advocacy from organizations - all this can be seen at the probation's page and/or the linked community decision). I relaize that there is a time-sink involved in reading all this but it will help you understand the wider context/implications of the dispute and any soultions you are working towards. Ruling out sources in the way that I read Guy's first comment to be doing would be counter-productive to the men's rights topic area - I read his remarks as putting forward a mis-construction of NPOV (i.e that sources should be neutral) - he has however clarified this[2] (and I am happy that the matter is resolved)--Caililtalk17:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
So...I am a little confused as to why you made this thread if you are satisfied that the issue is resolved. As Guy stated, please comment on the contributions and not the contributer. I noticed you took my comment of "accusation" and overstated it as "attack". Was that really necessary? I undestand that a dispute can be aggrevating, but...
Amadscientist as a piece of advice take constructive criticism on board, don't dismiss it. Furthermore I take the word "attack" from Guy's post: "Attacking one of the volunteers who is working on your case accomplishes nothing"[3]. The diff for this is listed above, perhaps you missed that? Also BTW messages that can be considered patronizing are deeply unhelpful in resolving disputes - your above "stay came ..." is one such. You might not see it that way, but you have dismissed a series of comments apparently without reading them. I am happy that the core issue between myself and Guy is resolved. However, the manner in which my criticism of some of the volunteers here (not all) and their overly casual attitude to an area under probation highlights for me the need to train/oversee DRN volunteers. You seem to have missed the point - I'm trying to help you, not in regard to the Men's rights issue but the overall way in which this board handles things (especially topics/disputes in areas under sanction). If you are not open to criticism, advice and aid then there is a problem here. Consider this - there has been no reply to the substantive points in my post, for example about using WP:RSN and staying out of reliability discussions etc. Neither of you have tried dialogue. In such a context how can sysops (& Arbs for that matter), who have to deal with issues that fail here and escalate, trust this board to resolve complex hot button disputes if its volunteers deal with fair criticism in the manner I've experienced--Caililtalk14:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Really? Problem is, you replied directly to me, not Guy:
"User:Cailil, please refrain from making accusations against the volunteers here. I do not see Guy's comments as extreme or suggesting anything of the sort. Remember this is where you show your sources and the article talkpage is seperate. We will not be jumping back and forth so please be prepared to share all sources here. If there is a paywall and sources are unavailable someone will need to provide the text and we, of course, will trust the good faith of the editors. Please do the same with the volunteers.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Amadscientist my above is not an attack on Guy - it's criticism. It's also quite fair. I'm taking the matter to the talk page. AFAIK there are no paywall issues - the relevant sources were listed and quoted from, albeit in a diff I presented in my statement - perhaps this was missed by you & guy--Cailil talk 16:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)"
And FYI Amadscientist you reading my post above as ad hominem is a really bad sign. My comments are about Guy's actions not his person. Again, this kind of post is why I think volunteers here need to trained/subject to oversight so that they don't make such posts that confuse policy, and get wrong to the degree that prevents disputes from being resolved. We do this with sysops at WP:AE I don't see why we shouldn't be doing so here--Caililtalk14:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I am having trouble reconciling your claim that your comments are about my actions rather than my person with the following quotes:
"Your conflation of these core policy concepts and dismissal of these sources is frankly incredible and raises questions about the ability of this board to handle topics under probation"[4]
" *Sigh*, I've just come across the one thing I'd hoped never to see on WP:DRN - a complete misinterpretation of policy by one of the volunteers while trying to help in an area under probation. These comments by Guy Macon are bizarre."[5]
"This is precisely the kind of help every content dispute at a resolution board doesn't need... can we WP:TRUST DRN to handle complex matters in 'hot' areas if we don't vet volunteers' knowledge of policy... Sorry for being melodramatic BTW I'm really disappointed in this - no wonder we have to deal with so much stuff at AE if DRN and other pages are giving this kind of help..."[6]
"...in my only experience of DRN as an enduser I have serious issues with how volunteers are (not) being prepared for handling disputes..."[7]
"There's no point in merging/consolidating fora if the people who patrol it/them aren't skilled enough to resolve disputes of various kinds (or experienced enough to know when to ask for someone else to help them out)."[8]
"I do see that Guy is working in good faith but good intentions are not enough."[9]
I have an alternative theory. My theory is that you are highly involved in this particular dispute, which is an area in which you, as a member of WikiProject Feminism, have strong opinions. I think that you looked at my initial attempts to define the dispute and, in a way very much reminiscent of pulling carrots out of the ground to see how they are growing, immediately decided that I am not qualified and started calling for major changes in the way DRN operates (vetting of volunteers, mandatory reeducation camps training...) without first reviewing the lengthy discussions we have already had had on that very topic and without waiting to see where I am going with the dispute.
I have been waiting for any uninvolved editor to say "Oh my gosh! Guy is completely screwing up on this dispute, and it's not just some uncorrectable error -- he is completely unqualified!!" and ask me to recuse myself, but for some strange reason that isn't happening. (Note: as I have said many times, criticisms and corrections make me happy -- that's how we improve -- so please tell me if I am screwing up.)
I think your experience with arbitration enforcement has given you a skewed view of dispute resolution. At DRN we get many cases that never hit AE. We get nice folks who just need a bit of advice and the problem is solved. We get extremely disruptive individuals who end up being blocked. We get a lot of easy disputes that never reach the higher levels. And we get some really tough cases where we make a treasonable effort to solve it then pass it upward.
Your idea of vetting DRN volunteers is never going to fly. We are on a different path -- a path where everyone understands that my being a dispute resolution volunteer 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 the dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. There is a reason why admins and arbcom members are vetted. They are vetted because we are trusting them with power. Here at DRN, nobody has any power, and thus we can be informal and allow pretty much anyone to act as a volunteer.
My advice to you is to put your efforts to reform DRN and criticize DRN volunteers on hold until you are no longer in the middle of an active dispute. Even if your motives are pure, there is an appearance of you trying to get your way in the dispute by using a back-door method to talk about user conduct instead of article content. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Guy have I asked you to recuse? No I haven't - why because I do see you're working in good faith. Have said "Guy is unqualified"? No - why, becuase I think you made a mistake (which is not a hanging offence). However this mistake could happen in every thread by any number of volunteers (it shows a system failure at DRN in the way volunteers are trained or not trained). My specific complaint in this thread (your apparent misconstruction of NPOV) has been fixed (you clarified) but the fact that it happened raises questions for me about this board's human systems and structures. Right now I see also of conversation about improving the software structures but not so much about improving the human system - I think both should happen simultaneously. Now, you have made a series of personalized remarks about me acting in (not to ovestate it) bad faith - the latest above: "there is an appearance of you trying to get your way in the dispute by using a back-door method to talk about user conduct instead of article content". You've also speculated about my personal views above, which is not appropriate. (My view BTW in this dispute is that removing source content for dubious reasons is disruptive.) I will ask you to take a moment, and consider rephrasing/redacting those bits. There is no need for you to feel under siege - despite my initial exasperation at your first comment I'm happy that there is no problem in the Men's rights thread. I have no problem with you leading the resolution and in fact I'm willing to withdraw from the thread if this issue is causing problems. TBH Guy I see how and why you made what I see as errors in mediation of a dispute (you involved yourself in discussion of content - I gave the advice above re: send issues to WP:RSN don't say something written by academics is "advocacy" let consensus form in the appropriate place on that matter). Indeed perhaps you don't see yourselves as mediators - perhaps that's my error (that I expected that that's what DRN volunteers are supposed to do) but there is no reason to be so defensive. I'm happy to leave this as a misunderstanding between us Guy, or I'm happy to have sysops review the my part in the whole matter, also again I'm happy to withdraw (I made no edits to the Men's rights article just talk page comments so I see no damage in my withdrawal here). Either way I will be pursuing my conversations with Steven about this board and the plans to expand it (as will the rest of the community), and I will be reflecting on my experience of the board and how it could/should have been better and will, like the rest of the community be voicing my opinion and suggestions on how to improve it--Caililtalk21:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Cailil, I am more than a little concerned with your discussion of editors on the DR/N filing and clearly it has disrupted a very complicated dispute and made it even harder for the volunteers to handle. The behavior is even odder when considering you are an administrator and a self proclaimed arbitration enfocement member with some sort of vetting and training yourself. I actually do think you should withdraw now. Per DR/N guidelines: "Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion." I am asking you to please leave the discussion at this time. Your input is there and we may refer back to it, but you have been making a number of posts about the DR process while in a DR/N dispute and your neutrality and objectivity is in question as is your ability to be concise, stay on topic and remain civil. Thank you and happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
@Cailil: you seem to get misled here, as DRN is not supposed to provide the mediation services. It is just a forum where someone drags a content dispute and some locals try to help out the way they can or feel appropriate. The fact that WP:MEDCAB redirects disputes here doesn't mean that we continue the informal mediation practices. If you read the "Guide for participants" text at the top of DRN, you'll find the following:
What this noticeboard is:
It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
OK. I have read over the discussions here as well as the DRN thread. I don't think there was any deliberate misconduct here, but I do want to emphasise the need to tread carefully when we encounter complex disputes, especially when they are under general sanctions. The following references [10][11] are both published by publishers that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and the first reference is written by a professor in the field of gender studies - I think this is sufficient to establish the reliability of the source. The separate question is whether DRN should have a process for vetting potential volunteers before they are able to be a volunteer - I disagree that this is an approach we should take. Dispute resolution is really a niche area, and the greatest challenge to the future of dispute resolution is the shortage of volunteers. Requiring a selection or vetting process like the Mediation Committee is just not viable, and I don't think it is necessary either. With formal mediation, more often than not a one-to-many relationship exists between the mediator and the participants, so the mediator really needs to have some vetting, as they and they alone are responsible for resolving the dispute. DRN has a many-to-many relationship, so even if one volunteer missteps, another will generally pick up the slack. There is a volunteer guide written to assist newer volunteers resolve disputes, and there are more experienced DR folk here to lend a hand when needed, but DR is a very much learn-on-the-job role. There has to be somewhere to start - it used to be MedCab, and I think that DRN has changed things for the better. It's inevitable that there will be mistakes made from time to time. As someone who erred in a huge way some years ago, I know the importance of admitting one's mistakes. I think this has been blown a bit out of proportion, but my advice here is for all volunteers - and I will do the same - that if you haven't read over the following pages in some time - WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:REDFLAG and WP:UNDUE - to do so. As volunteers who are giving advice to at-times less experienced editors, it's important that the advice we give is grounded in policy. But I don't see a need to completely change the way that DRN operates. The proposals at the RFC are not to merge all noticeboards to DRN - it only proposes that one form will be created that allows for filing at all the current noticeboards. Further streamlining is inevitable, but the creation of one form is my current objective. To answer the larger question of whether the changes to DRN have had an impact on its performance, overall, it has. You can find the data for August compared to the baseline at this page. Regards, StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes!00:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Steven for addressing my concerns (and the link to the data) and thanks Dmitrij also for responding to my post: Yes I did see DRN with its team of volunteers as having some level of training and/or rules of engagement, not just as a bigger, better organized WP:3O. (I think there is a dichotemy about having people lead attempts at resolution with a formal role in this board and being as casual as you want to be but that's another matter for another time). I'm happy that this is resolved in full now that the porbity of the sources has been verified and my comments addressed, with the exception of Amadscientist's incendiary post above[12]. Would you mind please addressing this Steven or would you prefer I request a sysop to do so (I'd be happy with a simple redaction/strike)--Caililtalk00:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually the "formal role" is a hot topic here, and some of us (including me BTW) are supporting informal mediation way, but the fact is that DRN is only heavy on process when it is time to feed the bot, and it is extremely chaotic on the rest of aspects. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I think moving DRN to a style where all cases are on a subpage is unwise - DRN provides maximum visibility to a dispute, and this was the reason it was created. If it's a long, drawn out dispute I am open to them being subpaged, but it should be the exception rather than the rule. I am working on a proposal privately to reduce complexity in disputes, but I've put it on the back burner due to the RFC - that's my number one priority. StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes!01:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
On the balance of things, I don't think I should be redacting or striking the comments of others, and I don't thin administrative intervention here is required. I think we should all remember the core problem that we aim to resolve with dispute resolution - that's the breakdown of effective communication. Whether this breakdown in effective communication is caused by language barriers, the communication medium being used, disagreements or lack of understanding of policy, or outside interests affecting ones judgment - it's our job to help restore effective communication. It's happened here , and I think we should all just reflect on what's happened, be more conscious of how what we say affects others, and move on. StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes!00:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Well actually Steven I'm not asking you to strike it - I'm asking him to do it. I think a good faith redaction of some rather flamebaity remarks (accusations of disruption and incivility) would go some way towards healing - I'm happy to redact some of my own too if so requested. Or am I in fact being asked to leave?--Caililtalk01:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
If he's happy to strike it, then I think that would be fine. I don't ask anyone to leave unless they're disrupting DRN and don't heed requests to cease - I don't think this is the case here. StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes!01:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I have the utmost respect for Zhang and his opinion. He has worked harder than anyone I know to address concerns with process and procedure dealing with DR. I even feel that his review seems fair and impartial. While I may disagree with one assesmant - "unless they're disrupting DRN and don't heed requests to cease - I don't think this is the case here", I only disagree because I did ask the editor to refrain from a disruptive pattern of discussing the volunteer and not the contribution. The reason is simple; everything could have been handled without making this about the volunteer, but simply about the sources themselves. This got out of hand, not because of a mistake by a volunteer (although clearly Steven has shown the sources that another volunteer doubted appear to be valid) but because a participant created a situation and began expanding on it to a point that I saw as disruption. This does not mean everyone is going to agree with that. As Steven has said, that is why there are multiple volunteers. But I do stand by my statements. I did not say "attack" I asked the participant to please refrain from making accusations against the volunteers here. They simply escalated and went across to the RFC and on the talkpage here and continued the accusations. I do believe it is best if Cailil withdraw from the DR/N filing at this time as even they have stated they would be happy to do prior to my asking. They have even stated that they would be happy to leave this as a misunderstanding between themselves and the other volunteer...except that, now they claim my reply to their innacurate comment is an "incendiary post" and have even gone as far as saying I was being patronizing for posting "Keep calm and carry on". I see nothing to strike out. The participant has stated they feel the issue is resolved between them and the other volunteer, so I also see nothing for participant to strike out. But, as Steven's opinion is of greater importance to me, I will back out of the dispute entirely as it appears I am the "meat" of this particpants displeasure and clearly this is the actual goal they are seeking.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
No, not really. If you look at the two in the dispute and then look at the talkpage posts it appears the filing editor has singled out one user amidst several in the month long dispute. There are four threads beginning with "RE : Indigenous Turkish Cypriots" on Sept 3rd (and this is the most relevant discussion). All together there are 4 editors discussing, but it appears that the filing editor has made the majority of the comments and I am a bit concerned with their wording. Accusing the article of vandalsim - even calling it a candidate for the most vandalised article on Wikipedia is one thing, but the incivil wording of "this article not only vandalized, also raped." was uncalled for and appears to have set a tone with the user that may have kept others from AGF. The continuing next thread is just accusations of more vandalsim (seems to be unfounded) by the realtively new user (December 2011) filing this case. The next thread "Origins, Converts from Christianity, Linobamvakis, DNA???" is a very long posts that...well, seems to go off in a direction... less then desirable and the reaction from other users seems to show the dispute originates with the filing editor's comments and what may even be a small amount of ownership issues. The other editor listed as a participant here seems to have made a point in a rather unconstructive manner as well and this appears to be more of a conflict between these two at this point. I suggest closing as "Wrong venue - recommend Administrative Noticeboard/Incidents".--Amadscientist (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I brought up the concern over incivility and conduct as well. I largely agree with you. It's been closed by Czarkoff and deferred to ANI.--SGCM(talk)20:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Probably I should have reported the closure myself here. Anyway, this:
Could please someone replace me in this dispute. I don't have enough time to devote there (this discussion seems to suffer from lack of timely volunteers' comments) and my complete lack of interest in sports doesn't allow me to judge on issues competently enough. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not a neutral party having been one of the previous closers and someone who showed irritation at the current request. Hasteur (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
RfC: Should the bot revert case-state changes made by uninvolved editors?
What this proposal is not: This proposal does not eliminate the DRN bot. This proposal does not eliminate the DRN volunteer list. This proposal does not suggest that the DRN bot stop managing case state information.
Background - The DRN process is fairly sophisticated, and works with the help of a bot that automates some chores, such as generating the case summary table. The bot also performs some checks on DRN case status. One chore the bot does is to prohibit parties to a case from opening their own case. If the bot detects such a premature opening, it will revert the change. To determine if a party is making the change, the bot consults the list of DRN volunteers: if the editor is not in the list, the bot concludes they are a party and reverts the change. A consequence of this bot behavior is that editors who have chosen to list themselves in the DRN list have a special power that no other editor has: they can open DRN cases. This proposal is to change the bot so it uses some other approach to determining if an editor is a party (such as use the list of parties in the case) so that any uninvolved editor can open DRN cases.
Yes - The bot is a good thing, and the DRN volunteer list is a good thing. But the current implementation creates a special class of editors: those that choose to list themselves in the DRN volunteer list. Editors in the DRN list have a special power: they can open cases. But uninvolved editors not in the list cannot. This proposal simply asks that the bot use another technique to determine if an editor is a party or not (for instance, the bot could look at the list of parties to the case; but there may be other approaches that work). This change would eliminate the special powers given to the editors in the DRN list without changing the DRN process. --Noleander (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Very strong oppose - I believe I have not adequately stated my position on this so I will endeavor to make myself as clear as possible. First- the assumption that WP has very few lists of editors that have special powers is not an arguement anyone has offered and misrepresents the list of volunteers here. I also would like to note that having a list, and making it a prerequisite to mediate does not give or allow any such "Special powers". It is merely a "guide for people who want to help resolve disputes by acting as neutral third parties" and is but one of the steps needed to seperate the mediator from the filing/involved parties and is no different than requiring editors add their names to projects before participaiting. However, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering does not state this outright and may well be the core of the problem. DR/N works like a project with volunteer editors. WikiProject members have no special powers but do have some set privileges, such as being able to add or remove project templates on article talkpages through consensus of those involved project members, helping to establish content disputes (very much like DR/N) through requests to project talkpages as as stated at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution: "Subject-specific help - Ask at a subject-specific Wikipedia:WikiProject talk page. Usually, such projects are listed on top of the article talk page." as well as changing "Project collaborations" and many of the daily maintanence and scheduling of tasks, rating article within the project umbrella and creating and maintaining project subpages and the content within. A project such as DR/N does not require community wide consensus to have a list of participants, nor is such consensus required to make listing a criteria for mediating a case. Anyone may still do so, but is simply being asked to list themselves as part of the project.
There is a legitimate concern that the proposed changes to the bots behavior/task performance would allow editors to ignore following the procedures and guidelines set in place. Is ignoring these policies an improvement? I do not believe so. I believe it creates far more problems then it would address. As the originating proposer states, we can quickly detect and correct problems of motivation. Would this be any less true if a prerequisite of listing ones self existed? I agree with User:Szhang (WMF) who stated: "[T]he 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." I also note the amount of discussions and attempts from the proposer that have failed to gain consensus. This may be because no specific agreement on the solution can be reached...and possibly because the problem is not quite clear.
The bot maintains status updates. The list provides information for that updating. Why change the bot's performance when what is really needed is a simple change to one line of prose in the guidelines. From: "Consider adding your name to the list of volunteers below to help the DRN bot keep track of the status of a case." to simply "Add your name to the list of volunteers below to help the DRN bot keep track of the status of a case. Specifically, my reasoning is, why should we not require listing on this "project" in the same manner of EVERY other project. Without doing so we are opening up this project for a number of problems...this is just one of those problems. We are being asked to change the bot's behavior instead of just specifying editors actual join the project itself? That just seems unreasonable and reduces the relevance of the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Strong oppose Like pretty much everyone here, I agree with the commonly-held opinion that special rights/powers of any sort are a Very Bad Thing unless there is a procedure on place to evaluate and accept/reject candidates. What I don't agree with is the notion that the present behavior of the DRN bot grants any special rights. As long as it remains true that anyone can put themselves on the list, then anyone can make case-state changes -- the list is just part of the procedure for doing so. There is a parallel in the way we treat IP vs registered editors. The registered editors do have some extra right/powers, but that's OK because any IP editor can register and thus avoid the restrictions. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Commnet Which is the actual point and well put here in a short and precise manner. Yes, IP editors have less abilities for procedural reasons while registered users enjoy an expanded experiance. The List and the way the bot performs seem designed in a specific manner. To alter the bot in this manner seems to take away a great deal of the very reasoning to register, sign up for a project and collaborate in the area one has disclosed as their area of interest. This isn't as much a question of whether the bot should be reprogrammed but whether having a list that is used by the bot for seperation purposes poses any special power. As stated, signing up is an option anyone may take and requires no nomination or special right beyond being a registered user. While my proposal is only a side comment, I truely believe it is the real answer as I think it was simply overlooked in the very recent changes to the page since I added myself. The bot was already performing this task before when the page was being updated.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Change Yes, but not with this Hammer, as I've indicated above I have concerns with the way the DRN Bot works in that from time to time it obeys the rules as written, but misses the point when a volunteer deliberately moves the status. I've asked before if we can keep the bot from overriding volunteer decisions of status and received no feedback. If this is the splinter that gets the discussion rolling then fine. I am expressing neither a for or against position to the RFC. Hasteur (talk) 03:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Support: the bot is very limiting, and I'm not convinced it is worth having at all. While I'm not particularly concerned with manual changes by uninvolved editors (they don't normally do status changes), the way it treats the volunteers list and the statuses makes it usefulness at least questionable to me. FWIW it already scared away at least one potential DRN volunteer. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 04:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The user in question added himself to the list of volunteers[13] and put the infobox on his talk page[14] an hour before posting that comment.[15] Furthermore, he was a MadCab member for over five years[16] and his only edit to WP:DRN consisted of a minor adjustment of spacing[17], which was not deleted. In other words, he told a fib when he claimed "Tried to edit noticeboard twice, both times all my work vanished into the void".[7] You need a better poster child for being scared away by the RFC bot. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Guy. I assumed that he was one of the 'unlisted' just from czarkoff's use of him in this argument. Thought this was part of the propblem he was discussing.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I assumed the same thing, until I started digging through the history to see exactly what the bot reverted, only to discover that it had not reverted anything. I suppose the user in question assumed that nobody would check to see if his claims were true. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment. Perhaps there should be a bot updated (or manually updated) list for "temporary volunteers" that lists drive-by third party editors mediating a case? It would allow non-involved editors (who haven't listed themselves as a DRN volunteer) the ability to open cases, and invite new editors to regularly participate on DRN. Volunteers have no special privileges, and a temporary volunteers list would reinforce that.--SGCM(talk)07:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
SGCM: that is a very creative compromise: I had not thought of that. I would be content if the bot just added the non-party editor to the existing list; but a second "temporary" list would also do. I suppose the latter would be safer, since the editor did not consent to be added to a permanent list. Either way is good by me. --Noleander (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per Guy Macon - my views on this are well known but he has expressed them perfectly. If the robot is edit warring with volunteers, please let me know and I will deal with that (as I was under the impression that was fixed). StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes!11:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Question for SZ - What do you think of SGCM's suggestion above: modifying the bot so it automatically added a non-party editor to the list (or a parallel list) when the editor makes a case state change? --Noleander (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Correct. I think the new algorithm for the bot would be:
When a state change is made, if the editor is in either of the volunteer lists (permanent or temporary) let the change stay
If the editor is not in the list, see if the editor is listed in the Parties section of any case: if so, revert the change (as is done now)
Otherwise (a non-listed, uninvolved editor): permit the change, and add the editor to the temporary volunteer list.
This is very close to the process already in place. The only changes are looking in the Parties list; and adding to the temporary list. --Noleander (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I like it. One tweak I would suggest; look in Parties lists for all open disputes. Someone who is in the middle of a dispute is really not an uninvolved third party to other disputes on the list. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Another minor tweak (that may already be in the bot); while DRN volunteers and uninvolved third parties should be allowed to change case-state equally, both should be reverted bby the bot if they manually open a new section as opposed to modifying an existing section. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Should we not first determine if there is a consensus to not make the proposed alterations in this RFC, then begin another discussion to decide what action to take? I still think just changing the option of listing yourself to a prerequisite is a much simpler fix, within Wikipedia policy and accomplishes the same thing. Why make alterations to a bots operation when it might not really be needed?--Amadscientist (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Again, consider the restrictions an IP editor sees compared to someone who logs in. The easy answer -- and the answer chosen by 99% of websites -- would be to simply make having a username and a password a prerequisite. We don't do that. Instead we have carefully crafted a minimum set of restrictions that address known IP-editor vandalism issues while giving non-vandal IP editors as much freedom as possible. In like manner, we know from experience that some folks who file or are named in DRN cases will do disruptive things like prematurely closing their own case or manually opening a case that is just a rant and thus avoiding restrictions that the RFC bot puts on them. Those users need to be reverted by our bot when they do that. On the other hand, we have uninvolved third parties who see a case and want to get immediately jump in and get involved in solving it. We don't want anything to interfere with those editors, and in particular we don't want to treat them differently from those of us who have chosen to put our name on the list of DRN volunteers.
Re: "Should we not first determine if there is a consensus to not make the proposed alterations in this RFC, then begin another discussion to decide what action to take?", I think we are sophisticated enough here to make it possible to bypass some of the usual RfC bureaucracy. For example, I wrote "oppose" to Noleander's original RfC above, but if you read the thread it is obvious that I support his modified version. Why make him get an answer to the old question and then ask a new one? That would be appropriate with an RfC that is dealing with your average editor, but here at DRN we are savvy enough to bend the rules a bit so that we can work as a problem-solving team on things like this.
Re: "a much simpler fix" and "Why make alterations to a bots operation when it might not really be needed?" a change in software is done once and then runs on automatic pilot, whereas a change in policy needs to be followed by every individual editor. Both need to be carefully crafted, but -- all other things being equal -- altering a bots operation is the much simpler fix. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I certainly agree that we may ignore some rules...with the consensus of editors. So we might want to begin making it clear in the discussion what the proposals are and allow a discussion around that. I don't believe that altering the bot is either the simplest direction or even the best direction to improve DR/N. I propose that adding yourself to the list is the best way to "mediate" cases. If one wants drive by mediators that may be fine....I don't agree with such a need. I would think it should not be difficult for policy to be followed by every individual editor.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment It is the belief of this editor that the strength of the Dispute Resolution Noticboard is dependent on its voluteers. I believe that, so called "Drive by" mediators weaken this process immeasurably. The area of DR on Wikipedia has had major issues and the proposal to alter the bot functions seems specificly designed make it easier for anyone to mediate. The argument has been put forth that we should not require editors to add their names to a list in order to "help" out...the fact is, they may already do that as a third party, uninvolved editor or even as an inlvolved editor making comments and suggestions.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Your argument raises some interesting points. What if, instead of a temporary volunteers list updated by the bot, we establish a "Single Case Volunteers" list that is manually updated? There would be no need to fiddle around with the bot. This would encourage third party editors to not just comment (which they already can, as you've pointed out), but aid in mediating as well. A method of slowly convincing constructive editors to become regular volunteers, without weakening the process, while enforcing the notion that volunteering has no special privileges.--SGCM(talk)11:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I personally don't see the point of having a volunteers list and a temporary volunteers list. Just whack them all on the one page and if they don't edit within 30 days, remove them maybe. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Szhang here. Look, it is really simple. It is a privilege to volunteer at DR/N...it is not a right. While everyone has the ability to sign up and mediate, not everyone has the skill required to do so. There is no special power above any other editor....OUTSIDE of the DR/N case, HOWEVER, while mediating... we do have the ability to enforce our "guidelines". This may not allow us to "administrate" with blocks or use any special roll back privilege (gee, there's a list of editors with privileges) or even review a said "pending change" (yet another list of editors, who at one time had special privileges and may yet again) but the point is, as a "list" of editors on the project we have some...no, several obligations. One of those obligations is to attempt to control the environment. It isn't mediation or dispute resolution if there is no control. Now...we have these guidelines for the parties to read and adhere to...willingly but, just as we can remove a volunteer off the "list" for being "inactive" (That is an option) we can remove a party from particpation if they refuse to cooperate. This isn't a special power. If they become difficult and refuse to leave and continue to disrupt, an administrator is a click away.
I know it must be difficult for many volunteers that are here constantly. It must have been a huge pain to Szhang and the few other volunteers at the beginning when there were even fewer...but the answer is to seek out new blood in areas were such editors exist that would be more willing to help out here. There are a number of help projects where editors enjoy this type of work. The only ones to be encouraged in the manner proposed (bot operations or seperate lists) are going to be those parties that have filed or been involved in a dispute.....? That's gonna be pretty slow process if you ask me. It took me months after I signed up here to begin...and still needed a nudge or "ping" from another to come back. These disputes can be long and somewhat agonizing for everyone. The number of editors that would be encouraged to join through that process might not be very high. However, recruiting volunteers from like minded project members could be.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
SZhang's proposal is interesting. If I understand him correctly: he is saying there is only a single list, and it is automatically built by the bot (by finding uninvolved editors that alter case states); and that the bot would remove editors from the list who have not participated in DRN for awhile. SZ: Is that what you meant? If so, that is a great solution. Comparing it to the "two list" solution, they both work fine. I suppose the "1 list with removal" solution is simpler for the bot software, but I'm not sure about that. One good thing about the "1 list with removal" solution is that the list doesn't get cluttered with inactive volunteers. --Noleander (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh...well, if I misunderstood Szhang then no, I don't agree with that. I thought he was suggesting that there continue to be one list and if editors don't mediate a case within 30 days they could be removed as "inactive". I didn't think he was referring to any change to the bot as I understood him earlier to state that there need be no change unless it was still edit warring with volunteers.
I am for one list, which editors MUST add themselves to for the bot to recognize them as the mediators. I am for the manual removal of volunteers, after pinging. Which was the impression I got from the ping that brought me here. In other words, don't automate removal but simply keep an eye on the list and request from it when the board gets heavy. If an editor doesn't respond and hasn't mediated a case in 30 days they can be removed.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Here's what I think would work - one list, has volunteers active within 30 days. I still prefer manually adding to the list, but I'm not rigid on this. The bot could poke inactive volunteers after three weeks of inactivity to encourage them to volunteer, I think. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
That works for me...and I also believe the list should be a manual thing to be added by the person wishing to volunteer, but only because an editor that does not add themselves may resent being added automaticly to a list of any kind. Wikipedia editors can just be that way. LOL!...well they can. =)--Amadscientist (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, so...I have been here a lot longer than I have actually been helping with disputes. I actually signed up and observed for an extended (well..not that extended) period. I have always watched the talk page and left only a small amount of comments until recently. I aplogise if I come across to strongly, but I have observed some things that concern me. First, I trust the good faith of all here. Very much. Editors that work this hard to do what they feel is right surely are not trying to destroy anything, but simply doing what they think will improve the project. However, I have looked into the history of both the talk page and the Volunteer page and I am concerned that there may be a little bit of instruction creep going on that needs addressing. I don't mean to be rude and hope I do not come across that way. The ongoing discussion has a problem. There is no consensus for the guidelines they way they are currently written - or more accurately...for the change in wording that actually changed our guidelines to only "suggest" adding your name to the list. This change occured on August 20TH with this edit: [18] with the summary: "(Improve wording to help resolve ambiguity between "volunteer" (anyone who helps) and the "list of volunteers")". The bold edit did far more than that. It actually changed "Add" to "Consider adding" by the same editor making the current proposal. I have looked through the talk page history and I see several discussions about special privileges and opening DR/N filings before opening statements...but there is no discussion about altering this basic part of the guidline that has a consensus. In fact. Szhang has expressed several times (once specificly about emphasizing adding your name to the list for bot operations) about the importance of the structure of DR/N while also noting that we not be too overly concerned over rigid rules. DR/N has undergone a quick change recently and we may be having our first growing pain so please hold on...I am boldy changing that back to how it was originaly intended as this does seem to be the real issue. The bot's operation is designed for the guidelines as set for a specific reason. This reason is being dismantled a little at a time without consensus and without purposely doing so, but simply due to concerns over issues that are merely a perception to another addition that was a copy from AN wording about special priviledges....and there is no consensus on that either. This discussion [19] was never fully discussed and fleshed out. In fact this is where Szhang makes the comment: "Agreed with the above - I think we should emphasize the need to add oneself to the volunteer list - it will confuse the bot otherwise :-)". IN FACT the volunteer page was altered and then returned WITH a reminder that the bot uses the list: [20]
So, heres the deal. We already have someone making some very bold changes to the volunteer guidelines and that should be encouraged not discouraged. If there are any issues they can be changed back. But, we need to stay focused on what are the core issues to avoid and main directions of DR/N that should not be messed with. This is one. That and I don't like the addition of the whole special privileges. It is a can of worms and I would note that most of us have some form of special privilege. Roll back, Autoreview, reviewer, etc. So the point is both moot and innaccurate.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, I think we are becoming too sidetracked on rules and regulations. The noticeboard functions at its best when many volunteers focus on resolving their dispute. The bot is there to maintain some order and make it easy for new volunteers - they don't have to learn funky templates to get involved, just add their name to a list (it also provides them a little bit of recognition - and DR is kinda thankless and unattractive to some, so it's at least something). But let's focus on doing what we should be doing - resolving disputes. DRN functioned very well in August, there's been a bit of a slump in September and I think it's because of all these side discussions. The current system isn't perfect, but it's working. So let's get back to work. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I love writing guidelines for projects and setting up pages with structure and researching out the policy to comply etc., but in the case of DR/N we have a vast amount of research that went into setting up guidelines to do that very thing...make it easy for people work here and resolve issues. Yes...I backed away from disputes recently because I became concerned that I didn't understand what was going on here again. I think I should get back to that as well. Because I actually enjoy it.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Re: "The noticeboard functions at its best when many volunteers focus on resolving their dispute" In my opinion, the sort of things the bot now reverts are areas where someone with little or no experience loses focus on resolving disputes and strays into housekeeping tasks. Getting them back to focusing on resolving the dispute is a Good Thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Listing options & endorsing them
The new RfC for DR reform is pretty ambitious. It has some great elements, and I'm sure that it (or some version of it) will happen eventually. There is a good likelihood that the reform will take the existing DRN process & bot and duplicate them several times in several of the other DR forums. If that happens, it behooves us to get the DRN process in really good shape before it starts getting propagated. Focusing just on this RfC's one question (namely: should the bot revert case-state changes made by uninvolved editors not in the List): Could editors review the choices below and add their names to those choices that they could live with? Don't just endorse the one that you believe is best, but all the ones you could live with. --Noleander (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Choice A) Uninvolved editors must add name to list before making state changes (this is the status quo)
[add your name here ... please add your name to all choices that you could live with]
Choice B) Bot automatically adds new, uninvolved editors to the list when they begin to volunteer. This choice may involve one or two lists (e.g. permanent and temporary); and it may or may not involve the bot purging the list periodically.
[add your name here ... please add your name to all choices that you could live with]
Choice C) Eliminate the list. Bot relies on other methods to manage case-state changes and statistics collections (for example: looks at the parties listed in the DRN cases: every one not listed is a volunteer).
List does not grant any extra authority although I find it a bit odd that we use "extra authority" granted to users all the time. Rollback is a special authority, as is accountcreator, reviewer, autoreviewer...how many of us have one or more of these "extra authority" privileges?--Amadscientist (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
[add your name here ... please add your name to all choices that you could live with]
Choice D) None of the Above
This position is that there is too much procedure/proposal/policy/meta-navel gazing going on and we're missing the point of the board... to assist users.
I will also note that "None of the above" means the same as # 1. This is also a little unusual to have this in the middle of the RFC. Like an RFC within an RFC?--Amadscientist (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
It's not unusual, it's counter-productive. Specifically when DRN flow is not broken but causes stress for some editors and/or volunteers. It's amazing to see how a wear-out of editors appears to be of great concern on Wikipedia and how it is met as something not worth comment here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
[add your name here ... please add your name to all choices that you could live with]
