I am sure that my natural charm and charisma will convince them. :) So how about it, my esteemed colleagues? Why must a case be marked "NeedAssist" when it requires no more assistance than any other case? Note: the answer may be to simply change the label. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
It's marked as "needassist" because it's been open for more than four days. Remember that we used to have two separate statuses, but there was a proposal to merge them? I think that we should revert back to how it was before, imo. Needassist is there when we have not kept an eye on a thread and discussion has got out of hand. Speaking of which, there are four unopened cases, the longest has been open for 24+ hours. StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes!02:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
There is no reason to revert that state simplification: If the states were split again, the case would still get marked as "4 days old!! time to panic!!!". The case is active and progressing. There is no reason to mark it at all. A lengthy discussion lasting more than 4 days is healthy. The only tag needed in these situations is: "This case is languishing: someone please help out". That is NeedsAssist tag. The problem here is the 4 day limit: there is no reason for such a limit. --Noleander (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Noleander. The only reason to panic is that something goes wrong. Being open for several days doesn't hint that something is wrong, it only shows that something is slow, which is quite normal in collaboration projects, specifically when nobody may be forced to participate in timely manner. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Do we have a guideline for dealing with a shared IP filing a DR/N? This seems a tad unfair to all parties as there could be multiple editors arguing the case and we would never know. Right now a shared IP from the U.S. Department of Energy (User talk:205.254.147.8) has filed a DR/N. If this case goes forward, how should this be handled?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I am going to suggest that the filing editor register an account without suggesting that this is a criteria (since I don't know or think that it is). I am also going to close their filing as malformed shortly if it is not fixed as there is no article with that name and a quick search found only 2012 EU Cup Australian rules football which has no talkpage and none of the listed participants.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest to note in (currently missing documentation) that all IP editors in a case are regarded as single editor. There's nothing barring people from registering accounts, so there's no excuse for continued distraction. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Uhm...except all IP editors are not regarded as a single editor...which is why there is a disclaimer on the IP's page stating that it is a shared IP by multiple people and that it does not constitute a single editor as stated: "This IP address, 205.254.147.8, is registered to U.S. Department of Energy and may be shared by multiple users. If proxy servers or firewalls are used, this IP address may represent many users at many personal computers or devices.
For this reason, a message intended for one user may be received by another, and a block intended for disruptive users may also affect innocent users. If you are editing from this address and are frustrated by irrelevant messages, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. Sometimes, in response to vandalism, you may be temporarily unable to create an account." --Amadscientist (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and IPs are human too. But Wikipedia has accounts for a good reason, and if someone survives as IP up to filing a DRN case, the assumption of good faith is exhausted. Thus IMO assuming that all editors behind all IPs on DRN page are a single person is an adequate way to penalize the unwillingness to make this very first step from disruptive editing towards openness and collaboration. (Unless DRN may be permanently semi-protected.) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 05:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I tend to lump IP editors in about 4 bins. Behaviorally Similar, ISP Similar, Geographically similar, Unrelated. If a IP address does something and other IPs at the same ISP (or even in the same subnet) do the same, I'm likely to think it's one angry user behind a dynamic IP assignment. If a IP ... and other IPs geolocate to the relatively same geographic location, I'm likely to think it's one angry user hopping to various terminals/WiFi hotspots/etc. If a IP ... and other IPs behave the same way, we use the WP:DUCK test to associate them. If none of these previous tests have passed, then it's possible that there's multiple people intersted in the topic with a similar viewpoint. Hasteur (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
The nature of the viewpoint also factors in. Some minority viewpoints are held by a bunch of folks; it would be plausible to see multiple editors who believe Moon landing conspiracy theories, somewhat plausible to see multiple editors who believe the Phantom time hypothesis, and completely implausible to see multiple editors who believe that Jeffrey Dahmer was an actor hired by the Ambrosia Chocolate company to pose as a cannibal killer so no one would object to the factory being torn down and another one built with illegal tax breaks (yes, that's a real conspiracy theory, but not a popular one) There are so few people who believe in the Jeffrey Dahmer Ambrosia Chocolate conspiracy that if you see two of them they are almost certainly the same person. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
No, we are not discussing the article. As was stated at the close the article listed (red linked) did not exist and constituted a malformed filing.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if that is accurate or not as i have not clicked it, but....its too late anyway, the case was closed and will not be reopened at this time. Maybe you should show this to the editors at the page if you know where it is.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
@Moscowconnection. If the content dispute occurred on another wiki, then there's nothing that can be done on Wikipedia, much less DRN. The site UFOpaedia is privately owned, and is not a Wikimedia site like Wikipedia.--SGCM(talk)01:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Such information is extremely useful. I wasted 20 minutes or so trying to figure out what the post was talking about. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
And still see no need to. Its not Wikipedia. And I think Guy was suggesting that the information would have helped before we all went looking for the article that didn't exist at this Wiki.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Lorena Bernal
This discussion was moved here from the closed Lorena Bernal case.
I raised this issue at AN awhile back. Here's the discussion. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Supplement: I've asked Steve Zhang to change the text of the "Not yet" wizard page to read as follows:
Wikipedia is built around a philosophy of collaboration. You must, therefore, discuss your concerns with the other users on the talk page of the article before seeking dispute resolution. Start by raising the issue on the talk page of the article. If you receive no response, leave a courteous note on the talk page of the other editor's talk page to discuss the matter. If that fails, then place {{helpme}} on your own talk page, and a volunteer will come by your page to help. If the other editor or editors involved will still not engage in discussion, consider filing a request for comments or a complaint at the administrator's noticeboard.
This is not a proposal, just a poll of opinions to determine the current standing.
Recently several discussions touched the issue of special status of DRN volunteers. Though as it stands, DRN volunteers are simply the editors listed at WP:DRVOLUNTEERS, obviously some editors believe some special status of volunteer should be in place.
This poll is headed only at regular volunteers, and its results are not supposed to be implemented in any way. Please indicate your support or opposition for the statements below. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I challenge you to name a single person who "believes some special status of volunteer should be in place". I don't think you can. All I see is a bunch of people claiming that someone else holds that position. It is a classic straw man argument, in my opinion. --Guy Macon (talk)
This poll was actually intended to stop reiteration of the arguments below (including the one you refer to) and make a central reference in case of poking a dead horse again. That said, I my bad wording made the idea behind the statement #7 unclear, and I didn't expect any support for #2, so these two are my failures. But otherwise the poll succeeded in showing that horse is dead and no further poking is required (at least for some time). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Most of the polls should be snow closed at this point. With the exception of the second poll, the opposes have been nearly unanimous. One of the major complaints of the current DRN process is that it's too bureaucratic. It's highly unlikely that any editors will support making the process even more bureaucratic.--SGCM(talk)18:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm particularly interest at #7, as several editors insist on common (undocumented) practices only, while some supporting some documentation. I would love to see where it is going. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
DRN volunteers should be subject to some requirements
This includes whatever technical, experience, devotion requirements; please specifically note your attitude towards listing oneself at WP:DRVOLUNTEERS requirement.
Oppose - creating a formal list of requirements adds a layer of bureaucracy, that in my opinion, is not required. It also raises the issue if enforcement - who would ensure that every volunteer meets the requirements? That would probably require elections or appointment of volunteers, and while there would be another question of who would decide the election/appointment, we need to remember that this is a notice board. Sure, we have structure, but I think this level of structure would be excessive. StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes!14:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - Too much bureaucracy and hoop jumping. I think if volunteers indicate areas of policy or article space they are familiar with, and they are notified of topics within that area when they are at DRN. That could help with people being more proactive. (perhaps with a simple template for each filing where an option is chosen) IRWolfie- (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that a special designation of "drv volunteer" should require something; perhaps there is a page created consisting of the Nutshells of the policies and guidelines most frequently encountered here and a statement that "I am familiar with these Wikipedia polices and guidelines will do my best to lead participants to impartially apply Wikipedia policies to help resolve their disputes." to which the potential volunteer signs as a pledge. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom15:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Inexperienced or inept volunteers generally aren't a problem and on the rare occasions that they are (and I can only think of one instance), generally a word to them by a couple of the regulars here will suffice. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Kinda defeats the purpose of letting anyone help out and that anyone may add their name to the volunteer list. We are not admin or moderators. We are just editors.Amadscientist (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose, this goes against the very nature of DRN. We already have MedCom for high-profile disputes and selected mediators, and there is no need in implementing anything similar at DRN, which itself is supposed to be one of the first steps in resolving disputes. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Note: I am assuming that this is not talking about rather obvious "requirements" like not being a volunteer and a disputant at the same time, not being an IP editor on a constantly shifting dynamic IP or perhaps a not being on a very busy high-volume shared IP. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Anyone with an insight or ability to solving a problem here should be allowed to help out as they see fit; barring only those people who are involved in the dispute prior to getting here. --Jayron3213:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
DRN volunteers should be informally recruited from specific range of venues
Some category of editors (parties of previous disputes, WP:3O participants, other noticeboards' participants, etc. should receive invitations to DRN.
Support - we need to be proactive in the recruitment of volunteers. Just waiting for people to sign up is working, but not good enough. We need to ramp things up if this is going to work in the long term. StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes!14:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Meh - Recruited by whom? Anyone who volunteers here or, for that matter, anyone who simply gives a darn about DR is always free, and indeed ought, to recruit likely volunteers, but we don't need a structure to do that. Such a structure might be advisable for DR in general <pokes Steven> but not just for DRN. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. The ideas of recruitment and dispute resolution don't sit well together – we can't force people to become interested in DR, as well as we can't influence the choice of particular DR venue of choice. There's nothing wrong with this – people are still coming to volunteer here, and the influx of fresh volunteers is quite sufficient to balance the low rate of retention. If the number of active volunteers would start to decline, the retention issues should be addressed first. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Support, as I suggested it at some point. Doesn't need a structure. Just put out notices from time to time in the Signpost and on the noticeboards. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Neutral. Asking people who would be good here to help out is a fine idea, but having a formal recruitment process could be seen as building a "cabal" or closed club of DRN volunteers who have some special status. I don't like that idea. --Jayron3213:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
DRN volunteers should be elected via special process
This includes any formal process of approval/election of volunteers.
Oppose. This is only needed if there are expectations about the performance of DRN volunteers. As soon as this forum is intended as an entry point in DR process (with more complex disputes deferred to MedCom or back to talk page to start RfC), the expectations shouldn't be particularly high. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Like any part of Wikipedia, DRN volunteers should be self-selected. The group should just mean "people who have worked around here long enough to understand how the process works" and elections imply the granting of a special status. Every person at Wikipedia who is uninvolved has something valuable to add here, and we should create a new caste of editors with special powers to influence the outcome of dispute resolution. --Jayron3213:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
DRN volunteers should exercise some special power other uninvolved editors don't possess
This includes the currently implemented special power to change status of cases, as well as any other special abilities one consider necessary.
Oppose — I presume that these questions relate to DRN in its present form and are not contemplating by this question that it be converted into something that it is not now, such as mini-arbitration or some kind of policing. (I also presume that by "special power" we're not toying with something which might cause the authorities to invoke the MRA or SRA, but if that's the kind of powers we're talking about granting, change this to a "support" and sign me up!) — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
It is possible to become so afraid that DRN will someday become something that nobody has proposed it become that the only answer appears to be stopping DRN from being what it is. There is no evidence that any editor exists who in good faith wants to change case statuses but has a problem with putting his name on a volunteer list. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. DRN volunteers = every person in the community. It's OK for people with experience working at DRN to handle the technical aspects of clerking the cases and doing other purely technical work, but "special powers" implies that such volunteers are given primacy in the social or dispute resolution functions of this board. Absolutely not. --Jayron3213:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Mediation?
Should the DRN volunteers mediate the cases, or any way of bringing discussion to consensus (RfC-like opinion gathering, etc.) is appropriate?
I think the current format works well. If the dispute is taking a long time and escalation to MedCom is not required or not possible, subpage the dispute and shift to a mediation approach. But straight up, how we do it now I think works well. StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes!14:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Mediation should always be one of the arrows in our quiver, but we all need to just be able to do our own thang, just as we've been doing. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose any idea of formal mediation for DRN. Volunteers mediate together but in a very informal process. In some ways we already have to make closing decisions.Amadscientist (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Again, mediation is something different entirely than what goes on here. The process flow should (in an ideal world) go something like 1) Talk page 2) DRN/ 3O/ RFC 3) Mediation 4) Arbitration. Each step along the way serves a different purpose with different levels of outside involvement. --Jayron3213:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The outcome of DRN discussion should be enforceable
Actions against the outcome of formal mediation are considered as conduct issues and may be enforced via WP:AN/I; should the same be true for DRN?
After some consideration, I oppose. Reflecting on the past, the community has rejected binding content DR in part because the proposals are for the decision to be made by a committee, or by one user. I think a community driven process, like RFC, is the best way forward in the idea of binding content DR. StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes!14:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. I've long been an advocate for some form of content arbitration, but even if the community supported that idea it would need to have safeguards and procedures beyond what we have here and, indeed, would also need DRN as one of the possible steps to take before a dispute could go to arbitration. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. The non binding disussions allow editors to work on their own at the talkpage even after a DR/N filing and consensus to change.Amadscientist (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Accepting the decision, like participating in DRN, needs to be voluntary. If we all went crazy and tried to do this the Wikipedia community would (rightly) shut us down.
Oppose. Part of the attraction of a process of DRN is that the participants feel they are being treated as part of the process, not that they are submitting themselves to summary judgement. People will negotiate and discuss in good faith if the process is consensus-driven and NOT disciplinary-driven. As soon as people believe that the process is coercive in any way, it completely changes the way this board will run. Some disputes may reach a stage where a binding decision is necessary, but DRN should be about 3-4 steps before that ever happens. --Jayron3213:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Should there be a local policy for DRN
Is a document explaining the process and the rights of participants required?
Oppose a policy - the existing policies that govern Wikipedia are suitable. We have common practices which is fine, but we shouldn't be putting these down as if they're set in stone. StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes!14:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Support documentation. My fault – I didn't mean policy, and I should have used word "documentation" consistently. Indeed, people coming here should be able to learn about the process before participating, as well as potential participants should know the flow. Up to date documentation is always beneficial, as "common practices" known only to the regulars makes the process less transparent and harder to participate for newcomers, including potential volunteers. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Partial oppose: Process is useful to know about, "rights" implies this is a disciplinary process, like a court of law where the "defendants" have "rights". I'm not comfortable with language like that in a process where we are trying to help people build a consensus and not sanction them for bad acting. --Jayron3213:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This filing is unusual and may need attention of a regular volunteer. I must recuse myself from further involvement, but have left a message at the filing editors talkpage that has yet to be replied to. This may simply be an ownership issue and DR/N may not be the proper venue. The number of listed participants seems unusually high and at a glance appears to list more editors than the entire talk page currently shows particpating in all discussions.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
This problem is a periodic one of some Indian editors who want to raise the status of their own castes (usually often by trying to deny historical evidence) but have no clue whatsoever of the concepts of reliable sourcing - have a look at Talk:Nair and the archives if you want to see the extent of it. It has come up lots of times, and has led to admins being empowered to impose discretionary sanctions. The discussion that led to the sanctions is here, and the current warning template is at Template:Uw-castewarning. Unless someone comes up with actual evidence of any abuse, I intend to ignore this. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC) (tweaked -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC))
It appears to me that the filing editor either wants to reopen a dispute which had been resolved or died away some time back or is raising a new issue and not been able to raise any interest in it. Either way, there's not been any recent discussion on the matter so I've closed the listing. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have taken the liberty to add the FAQ to the talkpage. Generally these seem to be uncollapsed but we do have the option to collapse if needed.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
There are two types of manual filings. A manual filing with the correct formatting that may need slight fixes or tweaking and a simple prose filing. The latter is malformed and requires a complete refiling and should not be done by volunteers. While some may not mind doing this, others (like me) will not do so and creates a consistancy issue for the board. Volunteers should not file a case for an editor in its entirety and doing so simply defeats the purpose of having an automated form that easily allows filing editors to stay within the required format. I have changed this on the FAQ page to state that such malformed filings will be closed.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on the FAQ. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there's been an extensive discussion over the appropriateness of manual filings. From observation, I've noticed that some volunteers close manual filings, and others reformat the requests. There needs to be a discussion on how manual filings should be handled.--SGCM(talk)09:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I seem to recall at least one in the archives and I think it got brought up again a little later on. I know that there was concern over the bot making changes by non volunteers or volunteers the bot does not seem to recognize. Steven was going to look into that. I don't know what discussion you feel is needed. A prose filing is malformed. A formated filing that uses an improper spelling for the article or use quotes can simply be fixed and we have discussed that. Are you saying you feel it is innappropriate or has been no discussion to claim a simple prose filing may be closed? How many discussions do we need to define a malformed filing?--Amadscientist (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The question is this: Should we close prose filings or reformat them by ourselves? I have no particular opinion on the issue, but I've noticed both approaches on DRN.--SGCM(talk)00:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I personally decide what to do on an individual basis based upon the situation. If the filer seems like a good-faith newbie who just doesn't understand how to file, I fix the problems for him. If I see a user with a history of being told what Wikipedia policies are and violating them anyway, I close it. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I generally don't like the thought that we would completely file for someone just because they refuse to use the proper formatting at all. Supercouple was made as a simple prose filing twice, but also didn't really qualify as a dispute with extensive discussion. A simple prose filing may not have all parties involved listed, but also if a volunteer refiles the entire thing at the start, how would that effect the bot? Would it automaticly open the filing as having a volunteer posting?--Amadscientist (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Good question. I have not manually fixed up a bad entry since the bot was turned on. It might very well be that I have not manually fixed up a bad entry because the bot was turned on. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The page in the Wikipedia space can be directly transcluded on the talk page, so there's no need for two identical pages. Having one page keeps the editing history in one location, instead of dividing it between two places.I realise the problem now. Direct transclusion messes with the TOC.--SGCM(talk)09:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Olive branch
I made this to give to participants when you feel inclined. It can also be used to leave an encouraging note or longer message.
{{subst:Dispute resolution noticeboard olive branch|1=Put your message here. ~~~~}}
After 12 days and 13 hours, I am closing the Olympic cycling dispute as resolved. Some wording discussion is still ongoing but a clear consensus has been reached for the prose to replace what was the main dispute. Because this DR/N filing was a little long I wanted to leave a mention of its closing and status.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Since we mention statistical information a lot here, I thought I would add the fact that, according to one prticipant, there were well over 200,000 characters in the discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Good job on handling the dispute. That leaves the Men's Rights case, which has gone on for 14 days. Any volunteers here have the courage to tackle that one?--SGCM(talk)22:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
According to the character count in Microsoft Word there are 239 509 characters (or 68 pages of size 12 Times New Roman) from the start of the headline to the end of "{{DRN archive bottom}}". I just wanted to let all the volunteers here know that you are doing a very valuable job. This dispute wouldn't have ended up as green without the essential and impartial assistance of Amadscientist. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I have to disagree with that. I was involved in discussions very early on, way back on the article's Talk page, long before the dispute came here, but I gave up due to the closed minds of some of the antagonists. When I tried to contribute to the conversation here, some didn't like my involvement and I was effectively told to piss off. The conversation here became so convoluted that only a marathoner would be bothered participating. My simple point is that not all voices were heard. This is inevitable when discussions become endurance events. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Very dramatic. Too bad it doesn't come close to the truth. No one told you to piss off. I am sure more than a few wanted to, but your were warned of the violation in civility you were engaging in and were actually not yet told to leave. You did that on your own. Frankly...as badly as you were becoming, I would personally like to thank you for your stepping back voluntarily.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, my frustration and impatience showed, and I apologise for that. But without this incredibly drawn out discussion it would not have happened. Many other voices were also lost on this extensive journey. Do you really think that those still talking at the end were the only ones with an interest? HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, you have a short fuse then because you left when the collaboration had just begun, before all the "incredibly drawn out discussion". The ones involved were the listed participants and I saw no others on the talk page all the way back to late August. I never saw you in the discussion one time.Amadscientist (talk) 08:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Windows 8 and Lionel Messi
How should this be handled? There is extensive discussion, however the filing editor has singled out only one of several editors envolved. The dispute goes back to July of this year and even the current discussion involves more than two editors, but is clearly the same dispute as the July discussion as pointed out by User:SudoGhost. I have left a message on the filing editors page.
Also, what have we decided in regards to cases filed with enough discussion as well as listed with all relevant parties...but no one is interested in participating. The Lionel Messi dispute needs to be closed. Is it a "fail" or just a "close"--Amadscientist (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, hey now, that is something that had not occured to me. Since no volunteer opened the case it surely cannot be a failed attempt if no real attempt was made. Once a volunteer opens the case (and that would only happen once all participants have made opening comments) and then no participation occurs, THEN it is a fail! Got it.
I'll add the Windows participants when I get a moment. Seems simple enough. But, I will add a commented out disclaimer explaining that a volunteer added them.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Closure of Healthcare polls dispute
I think there was a premature closure of the healthcare polls dispute. The topic was moved from WP:NPOVN to DRN (diff) because it's an issue that is bigger than NPOV and wasn't going anywhere there. I can clear the case in NPOV as well as move it here but we were not having two different discussions, it was a new conversation here. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. Although I understand your concerns, discussions cannot be moved from one noticeboard to another. WP:MOVE prohibits copy and paste moves because it fragments the editing history, leading to copyright problems. A discussion that is ongoing on another noticeboard, especially one that is only a day old, should not be brought to the dispute resolution noticeboard until the original discussion has closed. As the noticeboard's guide indicates, this "not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums."--SGCM(talk)18:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I should mention that copypaste mergers of content are allowed in a situation like this as it is not moving an entire page but merging some content. It is a simple partial merge that would then have the {{copied}} placed on the talkpage. Since the DR/N filing will end up being archived it probably could go on the actual case filing at the bottum to allow the template to go with the case when archived for proper attribution to follow the case when closed. The only problem is, as SGCM points out, it would be improper to open a case here while at another noticeboard and to close the other filing in favor of this board could be percieved in a bad light.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Open cases - need some assistance from volunteers :)
Hey all, some attention to the pending cases that need assistance would be most appreciated :-) (I'm working on another survey and getting the universal DR wizard finished, so my hands are a bit full!) StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes!23:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
It's a header problem (== instead of ===), which must have confused the bot. The discussion is part of the Olympics case. I noticed the formatting error when the dispute was still opened, but forgot to fix it.--SGCM(talk)19:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Fixed it. BTW, every case is labeled "This request has been closed and will be archived shortly" even though they are already archived. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
"Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already."
Why does the question
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
always have the exact same answer?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Is the bot filling this out for them? I would prefer their own words, which might actually mention where and how much discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it's an automatic thing, but there's nowhere for them to actually fill in something. It seems a little redundant to me, just because discussion often occurs on the talk page. I'd be open to creating an inputbox where they need to enter a word to go to the next step, to ensure they read the info, but it may be overkill. StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes!00:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Even as it is, it's not much of a disincentive. I'd be fine with leaving it as an automated answer, but I'd like to see the question restated to something like, "Has there been extensive back-and-forth discussion about this dispute on a talk page within the last few days?" Right now, the question is being answered in the affirmative even if the only talk page action has been a posting by the requesting editor or took place months ago. Also, BTW, Steve, I thought we were going to change the "Not yet" landing page text to:
Wikipedia is built around a philosophy of collaboration. You must, therefore, discuss your concerns with the other users on the talk page of the article before seeking dispute resolution. Start by raising the issue on the talk page of the article. If you receive no response, leave a courteous note on the talk page of the other editor's talk page to discuss the matter. If that fails, then place {{helpme}} on your own talk page, and a volunteer will come by your page to help. If the other editor or editors involved will still not engage in discussion, consider filing a request for comments or a complaint at the administrator's noticeboard.
Put that on hold - the whole thing is in the process of being recoded into a more accessible format. It can be changed in the meantime (any admin can insert it) but rejigging the whole wizard may be creating double work for us, as it will be replaced with a new format soon. Regards, StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes!01:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I would hope that "more accessible format" includes the ability of non-admin's to access and modify such things as this; right now, this causes WP to be the encyclopedia that almost anyone can edit, after all. <Jab, jab.> Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Could one or more volunteers please take a look at the RT television case? In particular, the discussion under "2 - The Ben Smith criticism" subsection, discussing whether the article should have a Criticism/Controversies section (vs a Reception section). Any input would be appreciated. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Also please note the Oct 24-25 deletions of sourced material by Festermunk because he disputes it. Note because of work on another yet unfinished article, hurricane, and accidental loss of a day of notes I'm behind on providing better sourcing, etc as I mention intending to do in talk. CarolMooreDC17:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry, but where do I post a new notice for a dispute resolution? I try editing the "Dispute resolution noticeboard" page and it tells me to "click the 'Request dispute resolution' button" on that page, but when I do that, it sends me to this page [1], which is a protected page and completely empty. So I am stll unsure how to fill in a new request. Can someone tell me how? Thanks.--ɱ 23:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, was the impact of the javascript requirement made clear at the "DR reform" RfC? Lots of newbie editors may try to initiate a DR case of some sort, see a blank page, and just give up. --Noleander (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Is there some way for the Request form page to detect that the browser doesn't have Javasript enabled, and put up some kind of hint to users, like "must enable Javascript to submit a request"? That way the users at least will have a path forward. --Noleander (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I was at that page and still see nothing. It is an empty page. I am running the current version of Chrome, not sure about Javascript, I'll look into it. All other wiki articles, project pages, and others display fine.--ɱ 23:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
It works with the default configuration of:
Internet Explorer V8.0.6001.18702
Google Chrome 21.0.1180.89m 22.0.1229.94m
Firefox 16.0.1
It does not work with the default configuration of:
Opera V12.02 Build 1578 Win32
Firefox with the wildly popular NoScript extension.
I see no reason why we cannot serve up something reasonable to browsers that do not support Javascript. At the very least a notice saying that lack of Javascript is the problem --Guy Macon (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Though is it the problem? I'm running Chrome v. 22.0.1229.94 m with javascript enabled for all websites, and yet I still see nothing on the page.--ɱ 04:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I just upgraded chrome to the same version you are using (running on a Windows XP box), and tested the URLs. These all work:
Yes, those links work, just the request page doesn't. When I go to that last link, it reads:
JavaScript IS WORKING in your web browser
Your web browser supports JavaScript version 1.7
Your web browser is Chrome version 24.0.1311.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.17 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/24.0.1311.0 Safari/537.17--ɱ 20:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Could we make a template that could be used for those that can't open that page or just want to make a manual filing? Would the bot recognize it if we used the {{Subst:?--Amadscientist (talk) 08:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
SZhang is responsible for that page ... I'm sure he'll visit here shortly and let us know if it is feasible to give a hint to non-JS editors. --Noleander (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
If its not feasible, we really need to ditch the whole thing. An important dispute resolution process being unavailable to those who run secure browsers is unacceptable. Monty84517:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Note that there was an RfC last month: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Reforming dispute resolution, which concluded that the primary case-submission process for most DR proceses would be a "universal" DRN-like wizard/form. That form would handle virtually all DR processes: noticeboards, 3O, Mediation, ArbCom. I think the RfC concluded that the original (unique per DR process) forms would still exist, but would not be the primary process that newbies would see at WP:DR. Of course there has to be some way to let non-JS enabled users know that the form won't work for them. Then they can either enable JS or ask another editor to submit the case, or find the original submission processes. --Noleander (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi all. The form indeed does rely on javascript. I am pretty sure it's possible to code it in so if they don't have javascript, they can be directed to a preload filing format (or at the very minimum, notified to enable javascript. I can work on this and have something today or tomorrow. Regards, StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes!20:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I am a user of Wikipedia:Twinkle, a Javascript tool. I am actually pretty sure that it interferes with me viewing the request form on that webpage. In an incognito Chrome browser (not logged in so no Twinkle), I am able to see the request form. So clearly that needs to be added to the list of problems with viewing, in addition to the older browser or disabled javascript. So I solved my own problem, yet either a notice or a non-javascript request form would be very helpful to others. Thanks.--ɱ 02:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, so that explains why it worked on all Javascript-enabled browsers in my testing. That being said, incompatibility between the DR page and Twinkle does not imply that is is the DR page that should avoid Javascript; One would be equally justified in asking for a non-Javascript Twinkle. Actually, neither of those are the right answer. The right answer is for the two developers to get together, run some tests, figure out if and why they are interfering with each other, and fix the bug. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
@SZ: Thanks for offering to follow up on this. Focusing just on the JS issue, perhaps the notice could include three options: (1) enable JS; (2) point to a non-JS form; or (3) direct the editor to Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard and instruct them to post a request there for another editor to create the case. --Noleander (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
The reason for a BLP removal is to get the material out of the public eye. To mark it would seem to me to encourage people to go into the page history to see what was removed. But that's just my opinion. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
That's a good point, but still, modifying someone's words in a DRN case with no indication that they were modified troubles me. It seems like something that would be very easy to abuse (remember, anyone can sign up as a DRN volunteer). Also, if you want to make it so people don't see something, hoping that they don't check the edit history is not the ideal way to do that. How about this: replace the deleted passages (or the entire statement) with [deleted] and ask an admin to make the deleted material invisible in the edit history? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm loath to revert the entire posting if part of it can be preserved without substantially changing its meaning, as was the case here. There's no bright line guidance anywhere that I know of on this issue, but I think a indication might be taken from the talk page guideline, which in the "Editing comments/Others' comments" section first sets a general principle:
"Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning..."
but then goes on to say,
"Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons or banning policies."
On the other hand, the RevDel policy says that edits which contain improper BLP material can be RevDel'ed. Also, I didn't do this so much as a DRN volunteer, notwithstanding this talk page posting (and also what I did here), as I did as a general WP editor under WP:GRAPEVINE, which empowers all editors to immediately remove such material, so the fact that anyone can sign up to be a DRN volunteer is mostly — though I certainly agree, not entirely — neither here nor there. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Whether or not editing the comment was the right thing to do, I think you should have notified the original poster on his user talk page; the edit summary alone is too easy to miss. He needs to be made aware of why his comment was edited and invited to further revise it himself in the event that he's not satisfied with your rewording. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Could a DRN bot expert check out the RT network case? I closed it a few days ago, but it is still showing up on the DRN page. I must have done the close action wrong, because I would expect the archiving to have happened by now. I'm sure it is a simple mistake ... but I cannot see it. Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I think I've fixed it. There's a comment (<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 15:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->) that has to be removed when a case is closed.--xanchester(t)00:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
In the listing, I noted a prior discussion at WikiProject Football about this issue. Here's who was involved in that discussion and a breakdown of their positions. I did this for my own benefit, but needed a place to store it and thought someone else might benefit from it. Here 'tis, FWIW:
Collapsing unnecessary and unsightly detail for now-closed listing
Except for Pretty Green, 125.161, and 84.215, all the listed editors have recent edits. (Indeed, except for a couple of them, they're highly active.)
I started to put this in the listing, but I was afraid that if I did so the Bot would have notified all these people. Would it have? (Perhaps they should be notified, but I think to do so would be premature at this point.) — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Seriously Broken Bot
The 'Bot failed to notify one user on White Privilege, one user on Monsanto and Wikileaks, and didn't notify any users on Fardeen Khan. Bad Robot! No! No!
I can't help but wishing that we had a community of dispute resolution volunteers who monitored this talk page and discussed things like the DRN bot not notifying disputants... --Guy Macon (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
In both of the cases that you bolded, there had been a previous notice issued before the bot was supposed to leave one. While they are pertaining to different cases, the bot can't determine this for certain (as it is possible for a user to have manually notified them before the bot gets to it), so it cowardly refuses to leave a new notice if there is an old one already on the page. This has been discussed before, such as here. I'm aware that this is not the ideal solution to the problem and I'm dissatisfied with it, but I'm not sure of a reliable alternative that won't accidentally leave multiple messages for a single case. — Earwigtalk01:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
What about using the key system that EdwardsBot uses? Assign each case a "id", insert a hidden <!-- case #1234 -->, and search for that string before notifying the user. Legoktm (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
What about notices left by other users, then, who are simply substituting {{DRN-notice}}? The bot would only recognize its own notices. I'm not sure if this is a good idea. — Earwigtalk01:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
The MiszaBot II archiving bot removed a major thread (not a case) from the DRN page (not the DRN talk page) in this edit on 18 Nov [2]
The bot's comment says it is archiving threads that are inactive for 24 hours or more. That is super fast. Can anyone shed light on why the 24 hour limit is used? Is this related to a goal of archiving closed cases within 24 hours of closure?
The thread that was deleted improperly was a top level thread "Proposed Compromise" which was within the Equestrian Glossary case. The "Proposed Compromise" section was a top-level section with two equal signs. I suppose the bot is acting as designed, and the problem here is that the editor that created the thread just didn't put enough equal signs. Is that correct? If this is the case, we should probably keep an eye out for subsections that inadvertently have 2 equal signs, and fix them to have 3. --Noleander (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello to editors Hello RocketRod1960 and Greenmaven,
Please help me resolve this? I am uncertain why my very minor change to Joe Sestak entry was rejected or challenged by both you and 'Greenmaven' as vandalism?
The corrections I attempted to make were very simple. The text stated that Joe Sestak's 2010 concession speech was done the Valley Forge Military Academy. That is incorrect. Someone else mis-stated this, and its posting was never challenged.
I was there that night, at that election night gathering, and it was held at the Radnor Hotel, in Wayne, PA. As proof, I decided to post to this page one of several pictures I, myself, took at that gathering, as Joe Sestak (accompanied by his wife, Susan, and their daughter, Alexandra) arrived to finally concede the US Senate race to Pat Toomey. [1]
I have already alerted Joe Sestak, himself, via DM on Twitter; Joe and I have been Twitter-following each other since mid-2009. I have also sent his brother, Richard Sestak, an email to alert them both that there have been many other, somewhat suspicious changes to this page about Joe Sestak
Respectfully submitted and yes, admittedly a Wikipedia revision 'newbie,'
Hi all, I'll be holding office hours session on DR in about 30 minutes in #wikimedia-office. Your feedback and comments are welcome. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Update on me
Hi all. I wanted to provide you all an update on me. As you all know, since May, most of my activities has been tied up in one way or another since my work as a fellow, and before that, conducting the first DR survey. My fellowship is tying up soon, it ends mid-January, but I want to offer my thanks to all the volunteers here at DRN who have helped so much over the months, offering input, ideas, and advice, along with keeping up with countless amounts of DRN threads. Your hard work is not something I have not noticed, and I appreciate it very much. Post-fellowship, I will be more active around here resolving cases once again, but we still have a long way to go at improving DR, and I hope you will all join me for the ride.
Can we talk about a topic ban on Steve? I thought we were rid of him, kicked him upstairs, that kind of thing <grumble, grumble, grumble>? Just joking, of course, glad to have you back and in harness again. Best regards and thanks for all the good work, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
"Breast Cancer Awareness" article and talk page
The case has a very short explanation that I felt needed more information. The filing editor expressed that the character limit held them back. For this reason I have told the filing editor that they may go past the limit for what I feel may be a somewhat complicated case. At the moment the editor has only listed the issues under terms of labels and not what the dispute involves.
This is the second time I have had to permit the character limit being ignored and am beginning to be concerned that we may be putting up some walls that many editors do not know how to climb over. I don't have a character counter on my computer (I don't think....I looked but could be wrong) is it at all possible to revisted the character limits for filing editors.......at the very least could we just suggest a 2000 character limit and word it so editors do not feel confined by a limit?--Amadscientist (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed (although I hate that essay). We could simply suggest the number with a small disclaimer that editors may exceed the limit only when absolutely necessary.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
If I could add a word, I think a character limit (not necessarily 2000) is a good idea for comments, but if one is asked or required to add a quote, that should not count towards the character limit. This is the main reason why my comments were over 2000 characters. Charles35 (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure why this was opened with just two participants. The discussion is huge and has a lot of others involved. I hesitated to close earlier due to a request when another volunteer stated the pending closure, but feel it is beyond stale at this point. It should be reopened with a larger listing of participants. Please feel free to re-open this if any volunteer feels otherwise.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
When do we close a filing for lack of particpation. At one point I remember we would close when even one listed participant did not give an opening comment. I have opened when there were multiple participants and only one didn't open (and that got them over pretty quick) and once opened when only a small group from a much larger listing (but asked this as an exemption as the dipute was out of control. It also worked in that one case).
So where are we right now on this? I would think (just my opinion) that as long as more than 50% of the disputants show up a case should go forward...however that would be an unfair advantage if 50% of the participant are on one side and 50% are on the other...all of one side shows up and only one on the other. Thoughts?--Amadscientist (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I haven't done a case in a while, but I'll give my opinion anyway. I think that unless there's all or more than 90% of the participants, it would be unfair to continue with the case unless those not present have specifically recused themselves from the case. gwickwiretalkedits23:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I think it has to be adjudged on a case by case basis. I've seen listing editors list editors who had almost no contact with the talk page or the article, and that weeks or months ago. I think we have to decide who's not responding, not just how many. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I do try to do that as well. But...unfortunately we also have to take into account the original filing editors mistakes so, if we begin to see editors who are uninvolved admin remove themselves and an editor who is only remotely involved state that they were surpriswed to be included...BUT leaves an opinion it can be a bit of a challenge to see the forest through the trees. I am only trying to establish a base line.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that if there are 2 parties present the discussion can take place. By parties I don't mean individuals but groups of people with the same stand in the dispute. ~~Ebe123~~ → report21:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
How hard is to create the DR request form?
At WP:RSN, we have had a couple discussions on how to get editors to follow RSN's header instructions:
A request form for RSN might be created as a RfC got consensus to make a universal forum for dispute resolution. It might not apply to RSN though, although I think it will. Also, having a form will not fix all the problems. ~~Ebe123~~ → report23:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Leveson
It looks like no volunteer is going to open this. Can someone please let me know where to take it next, and when this would be appropriate? Meerta (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
It seems odd to me that no volunteer will get into it. It's been set out very clearly. If it is closed, that must be the reason given and it must be an accepted reason. (That no one would open it.) Meerta (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Indeed I am. Sorry if I didn't comment any further in the following five days since I left that comment. I am still willing to help on the dispute, and I will start as soon as possible. — ΛΧΣ2118:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi of all the recently archived material, only Leveson Inquiry can't be opened and read. Can this be changed?
A volunteer is needed at the Rosas case. I'm participating merely as an uninvolved editor (or maybe party?). But, because I'm listed in the DRN volunteer list, the case appears to be already "taken" by a volunteer (me). But that is not correct - a volunteer is still needed. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Ut oh, same problem as what started happening at Medcab? Best to have at least 2 people -preferably more- volunteering on any particular case. (and anyone should be able to volunteer at any time!) --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Anyone can volunteer at any time. We simply require adding your name to the volunteer list first to be recognised by the bot. I have never seen anything about requiring 2 or more volunteers be on each filing.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I would be very grateful if someone could accept the burden of acting as arbitrator in that thread, since there is none so far. --Lecen (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I must point another detail about that case Here Lecen added MarshalN20 to the list of users involved in the dispute, claiming that he did not come as a neutral party. However, as it can be seen here and here all the edits of MarshalN20 at either the article or the talk page came after Lecen began to voice his concerns about the article. He was not involved with it before that, nor was specifically called by anyone to support a certain side. That means he's neutral. If the list of users involved is meant to list all the users who have taken part in the case before it was open here, then it may be right to list him, but Noleander should be listed as well. Cambalachero (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I've done a few third opinions and have no experience on cases that are on this board, but I can give it a shot if there's no one else. I'm headed out now and won't be back online for about four hours, but if when I get back no one has taken it and you need me, I'll take it. GoPhightins!21:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I have seen that the DRN page gets very loaded sometimes, and I think we should have a separate subpage for each case and transclude it to the main DRN page [Just like it's done on FAC and FLC, for example]. With the transclusion, the bot will be able to capture the case and gather all needed information to fill the {{DRN case status}} template. This way, the participants of each of the cases will be able to watchlist only the case in wich they are involved, and this will also facilitate navigation, as well as other things. Any thoughts? — ΛΧΣ2123:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I found them too, lol. I've read them and understand Steven's concerns, although some of his concerns are benefits, in my opinion. Even the Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents is starting to use subpages for long cases (like the one related to homophobia and user north800). I think, after reading, that the biggest issue is to have the bot reprogrammed and the whole DRN process re-structured... — ΛΧΣ2100:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Not sure how I feel about it either way. Try making the proposal again and see what happens. You never know, things may have changed enough that the opinion of volunteers may have changed.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the subpages are definitely superior (as I already commented in the prior discussions) - mostly for watchlisting purposes: Let's say there are 6 active cases, but I'm only interested in one: I'd like my watchlist notifications to be limited to that one case. Many similar WP pages use subpages: Featured Articles, Peer Reviews, RfCs, etc etc. The main argument against subpages is that there is a DRN bot that manages the DRN page, and shifting to subpages would require significant modifications to the bot ... so I can see why some are reluctant to tamper with it. --Noleander (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
This is really the only concern I have as stated by Noleander. If this isn't too much work for the operator and it doesn't cause any real issues on the page, I could support this.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
One thing we could do is ask the bot owner, User:The Earwig, how much work it would be to modify the DRN bot (which is User:EarwigBot). We could ask in a non-committal way, just to get their opinion of how hard it would be. They might say "forget it! it is impossible to do subpages"; or they might say "yeah, that isn't too hard ... I could do it in a couple of days". Their response would be a very important factor in making the final decision. --Noleander (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I've been thinking about a lot lately about how to move dispute resolution forward, and the idea of having all dispute resolution in a centralised place, in a SPI style structure seems like something that may work. It may formalise it a little too much, and that is the case with DRN. Status templates and everything is good, but I think one thing we've focused on too much lately is dotting the I's and crossing the T's, where we should really just focus on helping people. Having all disputes on subpages may work, but it'd need to be backed by a good bot. In the survey that was recently run by myself, some here mentioned possible improvements to the bot, but didn't elaborate on what improvements they thought should be made. If anyone has any ideas on improvements to make the bot, please let me know. In the meantime, what does everyone think of the idea to have most dispute resolution requests done like SPI? StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes!12:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
SZ: Some readers may not be familiar with WP:SPI, or what you mean by "SPI style structure". Maybe you could explain the specific change to the DRN process that is being suggested here. --Noleander (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Sure (Sorry about the delay). Essentially, how this works, is essentially, instead of each dispute being a thread on the one page, each dispute would have it's own page that is created by the filer, very similar to the format of WP:SPI. When a dispute is closed (as resolved or otherwise), it's archived, and can be easily referred back to if a dispute is filed again. Potential positives with the change is a more organised format, and easier to look back on past discussions. Negatives include the loss of all cases easily viewable on a watchlist, hitting a possible limit of transclusion (so we'd likely require all pages to be links), and criticism of increased bureaucracy. The universal DR wizard is nearing a stage where it's ready. Maybe we should see how it turns out and think about our next move then (but clear these two threads out first). StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes!11:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The Earwig said that it would take no more than 1 day to make the change. The Earwig also seems to support this proposal ("I definitely agree that having subpages would probably result in an easier system overall", The Earwig said) Also, how about closing the proposal on the 10th of January, 1 month after it was proposed? ~~Ebe123~~ → report22:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
