Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Is this within scope?

There is a long term and on going disagreement about "independent third party sources" and the application of such in WP:N discussions about a number of articles related to "fictional creatures in D&D". See [[1]] for a first pass at a summary of some of the publishers and relationships and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dungeons_&_Dragons#White_Dwarf_as_a_source for the types of discussions that have been repeatedly occurring about this topic.

Is this a venue that would be able to forge a consensus that could be widely applied or is it too large and complex? If so where would be the next best place to try? -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

For a general-purpose forum, it would seem to me that the reliable sources noticeboard would be the better place, but working out consensuses might be best at Wikiproject Games talk. Wherever you go don't forget that consensus decisions made in such places cannot be, or override, policy or guidelines. Under policy, sources are either reliable (of which independence and third-party-ness are two elements) or they're not. No amount of consensus can make a source which is not a reliable source under the policy definitions of reliable sources a reliable source or otherwise-acceptable source for Wikipedia; the only way to do that is to change policy via the methods described in the policy policy (not a typo) to either broaden those definitions to include that source or to arbitrarily say that the source is an adequate and acceptable source for WP even though it does not fall within the definition of a reliable source. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not really looking for a general purpose forum. There have been multiple discussions at multiple forums that just bring the people already involved and rehash the same positions over and over. I was looking for somewhere that we could get together in a more focused discussion that can lead to some type of widespread agreement amongst participants. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes to instructions at the top of the page

I would like to run some ideas up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes them.

1. Under "What this noticeboard is not:" we say

"It is not a place that issues binding decisions on content - we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy."

I propose removing "on content" - we don't issue binding decisions on anything else either. That would make it

"It is not a place that issues binding decisions. We focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy."

we also say

2. "It is not a place to deal with disputes that solely concern user conduct - they should go to the admin's noticeboard - however, we do accept disputes where conduct issues arise in the course of content disputes."

I propose replacing this with

"It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. Participants should talk about the article, not about other editors."

3. In the "Things to remember:" section, I propose adding this:

"Many disputes about article content also involve user conduct issues. Solving the article content dispute often solves the user conduct issues as well.

~~Finally, in certain cases I propose changing the title of "dispute resolution volunteer" to Dalek Supreme.~~

4. Finally, I propose repealing any rule that forbids changing the title of "dispute resolution volunteer" to Dalek Supreme.

Comments? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the first proposal needs more tweaking. Personally, I feel it's unfortunate that DRN is not binding on the initiator, and while I realize that will probably never change, I see no useful purpose in empowering people to waste other people's time here.

I endorse the second proposal: "It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. Participants should talk about the article, not about other editors."

I oppose the third proposal: "Many disputes about article content also involve user conduct issues. Solving the article content dispute often solves the user conduct issues as well." It doesn't seem necessary to DRN's mission, and the ~~statement itself~~ second part of the statement is arguably false.

I am agnostic on Daleks. Belchfire-TALK 18:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

1. Agree.

2. Agree.

3. Agree, but I wouldn't mind a little bit more suggesting where they should go (in WP, that is, I wouldn't want to open up the possibilities of where they ought to go outside of WP, or to what they ought to do when they get there).

4. Agree, conditionally, if it can be expanded to say "to Dalek Supreme or to Ultimate Grand Honorable Master of the Conspiracy."

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Goals for August

Hey all, so based on the results of the analysis of DRN in May, which were:

Disputes filed: 42 (yes, it really was 42.)
Average response time for a dispute to be addressed by a volunteer: 16.6 hours
Disputes that were addressed by a volunteer: 78.6%
Time that threads were open: 8.6 days
Amount of volunteers: 25, a ratio of 1 to 12 in terms of volunteers to disputants
Resolution rate: 47.6%

I'm hoping that for August, we can improve on this, so this is my aims

Average response time: <10 hours
Disputes addressed by a volunteer: 100% (come on guys, we should at least have a look at stuff that's filed here).
Time threads are open: =<7 days (after 5 days we should be re-assessing cases and booting them to MedCom if necessary)
Amount of volunteers: >30 - even if they're occasional volunteers.
Resolution rate: 70% and up - I think this is achievable. We have a new way for people to file disputes, clear instructions for new volunteers and participants, and a bot that helps us keep track of cases. If we all work together then this should be easy :-) Let's show the community just how well we can do things :D Szhang (WMF) (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Header: wording change re uncivil

The header had: "If discussions go off-topic or become uncivil, they may be closed." I changed that to "Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion." My thinking was that a single editor should not be able to close-down the entire discussion. E.g. if there are 4 parties, and only 1 is being uncivil, the new wording seems like a more precise expression of the DRN policy. See Heckler's veto. Feel free to revert or change if this doesn't seem like an improvement. --Noleander (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Disputes over sources and best use of RSN

The Reliable Sources Noticeboard says in its header:

Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context. ... This is not the place for content disputes, which should be directed to the article talk page, the associated WikiProject, or Dispute resolution noticeboard.

(Emphasis added.) The no-dispute restriction was first added in this edit in 2008 and was refined into its current form sometime around this discussion in 2010. Reading through the talk page archives of Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard reveals that RSN sees itself as an third-opinion-giving forum, not a dispute-resolving forum. (This discussion was particularly interesting.) In light of that restriction, how should we here at DRN best use RSN? Should disputes here which are purely RS disputes:

Be closed and referred to RSN?
Be put on hold and the DRN volunteer take the question to RSN?
Simply be handed here?
Be done something else with? (And, yes, I am a master of the English Language, aren't I?)

My opinion is that we ought to ordinarily do 3: Our mission here overlaps with RSN; we, too, as part of what we do, give advice about reliable sourcing, but it depends on the circumstances. If I feel that I can give a fairly certain answer about RS, then I'll address the dispute here. If I'm less sure, and no other volunteer here jumps in, I might do either 1 or 2. If I give an answer and it is rejected, I might do 1 or 2 as well.

I think we need to be careful, however, both in making such referrals and in giving such advice. In discussions I've seen here and at RSN, there is a slightly different "take" on addressing RS between here and there. We tend to be more focused on problem-solving, coming up with an answer that will settle the dispute within Wikipedia's standards; RSN tends to be more focused on recommending the best possible sourcing. I've noticed that we are sometimes negligent by not mentioning best practices; they tend to be negligent in not mentioning minimum acceptability. By that I mean this: Let's say we get a dispute in which A says source X is a RS and B says that it is not. X is a RS, but there clearly could be better ones. (For example, X is a newspaper, but there are probably peer-reviewed academic sources which say the same thing.)

We here at DRN tend to say, "A is right, X is a RS for that point" without going on to say, as we should, "but a better source should be found and used."
When faced with that same dispute, RSN tends to say in that situation, "a better source ought to be found for that point than X" without going on to say, as they should, "but X is, by policy, an reliable source for that point."

In other words, we do a good job of settling disputes, but could do a better job of encouraging the improvement of Wikipedia; RSN does a good job of improving Wikipedia by recommending the best possible sourcing, but could do a better job by giving complete answers. From a purely-DRN perspective, we need to be careful when we give advice about RS to keep in sight the ultimate goal of improving Wikipedia; we need to be careful when we make referrals that the advice that is given at RSN actually addresses the dispute. For that reason, I wonder if 2 shouldn't be preferred over 1 so that the question can properly be teed up and fully pursued at RSN to get a complete answer by asking, if necessary, "Yes, I'm sure that better sources could be found, but is X a reliable source for this point?" Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Generally, option 3 (handling here in DRN) is the best approach. RSN is focused on determining whether a given source is reliable or not. Occasionally, a DRN case may appear which is solely about the reliability of a source, and those cases can be referred to RSN. But those cases will be very rare. Most source-based content disputes are broader: How to interpret a source? What to do if two sources conflict? Is using a particular source too fringe or too undue? Must a source be attributed? Is the source within the scope of the article? Furthermore, what appears to be a RS issue is often a deeper content issue (an example is the recent Bulgaria case, in which the submitter posed it as a source issue, but it was really a wider issue). Another procedure we could use if a DRN case includes RS elements is: leave the DRN case open, and post a note on on RSN asking RS experts to post an opinion here. --Noleander (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Corporals killing

As Domer48 has pointed out here, he was only notified about the DRN a couple of hours before it closed. I think it would be better if it was reopened and allowed to run a bit longer, in the interests of fairness.--FergusM1970 (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if that is the case, the non-participation of two parties will make things unworkable. I think it should be assessed by AE at this stage. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 23:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Then you may close the dispute, and notify that the DRN was not a sucess as 2 parties would not participate. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 23:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Domer may have been notified about the DRN at 19:55 but they were aware of it earlier when they replied to Fergus at 08:31 [[2]]--Flexdream (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Requesting input on a policy proposal

There is currently an unfortunately lengthy discussion regarding how much weight to give material of what would be called an "in-house" nature in fiction in articles relating to religious devotional practices at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Is wikipedia a devotional compendium? There have been several discussions about such topics in the past, although this discussion is prompted by one specific set of articles. However, I do believe that any input regarding this discussion, or alternate ways to deal with such articles and material in the future, would be very useful. Topics like this have been a rather serious problem for some time, and getting some sort of consensus policy guidelines for how to deal with them would I believe be very useful. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Note added to header re volunteers

I added the following bullet to the DRN page header: "Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia." I stole it from the WP:ADMIN, page which has "... administrators should be a part of the community like other editors, with no special powers or privileges when acting as editors." My goal was to inform new editors (either parties to the disputes, or to editors considering becoming volunteers) that there is no special authority that comes with being a volunteer. I'm sure this new sentence can be improved and made more precise, but I think the message is important. One question that arises is: are there any actions that only volunteers can perform? E.g. closing a DRN thread? If the consensus is that there are such reserved actions, then this new Header text should probably be adjusted to reflect that. --Noleander (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I see no room for volunteers' special authority. IMO we shouldn't forbid the parties to close DRN threads: if they don't need any further assistance, we won't help much by saying "Wait, I didn't finish with you!" — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with the above - I think we should emphasize the need to add oneself to the volunteer list - it will confuse the bot otherwise :-) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 02:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of the bot: why doesn't it recognize me as volunteer? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, good question. I'll ask the bot operator. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 02:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you've been added as a volunteer according to the above template...let me know if it happens again. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 03:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

For the historical record: it didn't work with czarkoff (talk · contribs), but did with Czarkoff (talk · contribs). Seemingly bot gets confused with first letter in lowercase. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It ignores me again. Eg, I was the last to comment in "Filmnet", but the template ignores me completely. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll follow up with the bot operator about this. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet to be opened cases with some discussion

See "Religion in Turkey" section of DRN page for reference.

How should we deal with these. I wanted to close this case and ask initiator to file a new clean DRN case, but as there is no guidance on topic, I would appreciate others' input. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we could just let it be, and wait for the other parties. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 11:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Detach discussion from DRN's talk page

May we have this page moved to, eg. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteers' swamp and redirect (or transclude) it here? There is some traffic on this page, and thus rising some questions regarding current cases may harm the process: our discussions here may influence the behavior of parties and change directions of cases in some nasty ways. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we should create Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteers' Slough and link to it from here. This page should remain as a place for anyone to discuss DRN, while the Slough would be a place where volunteers can discuss things amongst ourselves in a way that the discussions can be accessed by anyone interested (TINC), but they would have to actually read the notice at the top of the page to find it. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree on this. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Detached. The pending tasks include splitting archives and current discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. (1) WP is built on transparency - the motivation for this subpage seems to be to hide information and discussion. To the contrary: all discussions should be aboveboard. (2) The notion that "we volunteers" deserve a special page for our own internal discussions is repugnant to WP policies of egalitarianism. (3) the word "Slough" it too slangy and may be off-putting to non-native speakers of English; (4) the page should not have been moved after only two days of notice. --Noleander (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Why slough? None of the wiktionary definitions seem obviously applicable, let alone meaningful. No explanation to be found here. Why capitalised?

The skin shed by a snake or other reptile.
Dead skin on a sore or ulcer.
A muddy or marshy area.
A type of swamp or shallow lake system, typically formed as or by the backwater of a larger waterway, similar to a bayou with trees.
A secondary channel of a river delta, usually flushed by the tide.
A state of depression.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

My original idea was that volunteers get back to the swamp to discuss the process. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Why would volunteers get into the swamp. Maybe they fall into a swamp? Are there crocodiles or mosquitos associated with this swamp? Or is it a cold swamp? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The idea was that they inhabit this swamp, though I'm pretty sure Guy Macon got it another way. Anyway, the particular name isn't all that important. The important part is that this place is a publicly-accessible internal forum that doesn't get watchlisted automatically. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

A swamp is a place where you might get dirty - a place where you might get stuck spinning your wheels. It is also a place that can be drained or filled and thus made useful. As the old saying goes, "when you are up to your neck in alligators, it is hard to remember that you came to drain the swamp."

Those who are fans of classic literature might recognize a reference to the book The Pilgrim's Progress, written by John Bunyan and published in 1678:

"Now I saw in my dream, that just as they had ended this talk, they drew nigh to a very miry slough that was in the midst of the plain: and they being heedless, did both fall suddenly into the bog. The name of the slough was Despond. Here, therefore, they wallowed for a time, being grievously bedaubed with the dirt; and Christian, because of the burden that was on his back, began to sink in the mire. But I beheld in my dream, that a man came to him, whose name was Help, and asked him what he did there.

Help: 'But why did not you look for the steps? ... It is not the pleasure of the King that this place should remain so bad. His laborers also have, by the direction of his Majesty's surveyors, been for above this sixteen hundred years employed about this patch of ground, if perhaps it might have been mended: yea, and to my knowledge,' said he, 'there have been swallowed up at least twenty thousand cart loads, yea, millions of wholesome instructions, that have at all seasons been brought from all places of the King's dominions, (and they that can tell, say, they are the best materials to make good ground of the place,) if so be it might have been mended; but it is the Slough of Despond still, and so will be when they have done what they can. True, there are, by the direction of the Lawgiver, certain good and substantial steps, placed even through the very midst of this slough; but at such time as this place doth much spew out its filth, as it doth against change of weather, these steps are hardly seen; or if they be, men, through the dizziness of their heads, step beside, and then they are bemired to purpose, notwithstanding the steps be there...' "

I think any dispute resolution volunteer will recognize the "at least twenty thousand cart loads, yea, millions of wholesome instructions", having delivered a few cartloads himself. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dmitrij. I think I understand the watchlist problem. Every participant at a WP:DR discussion by default watchlists the whole WP:DRN page and its talk page. This means that discussions on individual DR cases share the same watchlist with discussions on the process itself. The two have different time scales, confounding the watchling function, and people may crossover between the two diferent types of discussion uninformed, or at least not-up-to-speed.

But I think the wrong solution has been found. The process should be laid out at WP:DR, with discussion about the process in general at WT:DR. Individual WP:DR cases should be located in subpages. Transclude each DR case on the main page, and remove it when done. This keeps the the main page regulars informed via watchlisting of new case arrivals, but the detail of case edits only occur on the subpage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Disputant closing case

We just had a party to the dispute close Religion in Turkey. We need some written rules saying not to do that, or anyone who is losing a fight will be able to close the discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree, though in this particular case it is OK, as the case shouldn't have been opened in the first place. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I added a note to the Header of the DRN page as follows: "You don't have to list yourself in the volunteer list to be a volunteer; anyone is welcome to provide input. However, parties should not close discussions." --Noleander (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

blockage of new facts and information on the entry of Sislej Xhafa

To whom It May Concern: I am a user and I love Wikipedia. I notice that User:Evlekis has been involved in a continues dispute over the wikipedia entry of Sislej Xhafa. Sislej Xhafa's entry needs to be updated with additional facts and information. However Evlekis is blocking any changes. i have noticed that other entries from former Yugoslavian countries are also facing a problem with "Elvekis" and his reverting and editing of new facts. It is in the best interest of Wikipedia and it's users to optain the latest information and facts on it's entries. Political agendas CANNOT be a guiding principal for wikipedia. i hereby request a third party to assist in the editing process of entries. I thank you in advance. Estherboy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estherboy (talk • contribs) 16:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Moved Discussion

I just boldly moved the Per-case subpages and Poll discussion to Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard --Guy Macon (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Propose deletion of this page

Talk pages were merged back. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:29, 14 August 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.

Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Propose deletion of "hidden" Talk subpage. Please post comments there, not here (so the discussion is co-located). --Noleander (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record: the current location of the discussion wikilinked above is #Propose deletion of Volunteers' Slough subpage. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:36, 14 August 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.

IRC channel for DRN

With Guy Macon's removal of the IRC template, should we get #wikipedia-en-DRN to be our official IRC channel? ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 00:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I strongly oppose making IRC (or email, or live chat, or Gopher, or packet radio...) a part of the process at DRN, especially without any discussion or seeking of consensus. Wikis have important advantages in the areas of openness, traceability, and searchability. We should not abandon them lightly. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

IRC will not be used for consensus making, but discussions, that may translate to proposals on-wiki. Seeking of consensus will remain on-wiki, but the discussions that makes the proposals has no reason to be on-wiki and that would take more time. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 01:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I oppose the use of a separate IRC channel for this, especially given the clear evidence that limited-purpose IRC channels have an extremely low usage - this means that the "discussions that makes the proposals" would be attended by not just a small unrepresentative subset of editors, but in fact a ludicrously small handful of individuals. It's a recipe for disaster. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

IRC is there for a few purposes - for general discussion of DRN, and so participants can come on if they are stuck with filing a dispute. It also has a bot in the channel that monitors DRN and gives updates on statuses. We shouldn't be doing DR in there and proposals should happen on wiki - but it has a purpose and I think we should keep it. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if I'm intruding having taken no part in DRN, but my biggest fear with an IRC channel is its potential for misuse. It would be easy for editors to use the channel to try to resolve a dispute there. Is there any reason #wikipedia-en couldn't be used? Ryan Vesey 19:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There's a bot in the channel which maintains a feed of the cases - when the page is edited, the bot notifies the channel. #wikipedia-en is too loud essentially - a dedicated channel makes sense imo. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 03:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as the existence of this page is cited as major breach of transparency, IRC channel is a no go. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. If folks like Dmitrij here are expressing quite reasonable concerns that this page isn't transparent enough, surely they will have stronger concerns with IRC.

Another thing I don't like about IRC is the fact that it excludes handicapped individuals who type with a mouth stick or head stick.

I have a larger concern about this. What happened to WP:BRD? Someone boldly decided that DR should use IRC, I objected, removed the IRC link and invited discussion, and the link was put back while we discuss it. If it is that easy to get a change in despite someone objecting, I may become the official Wikipedia Dalek Supreme sooner than I thought... --Guy Macon (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm handicapped with cerebral palsy, and can't type quickly, but I can still use IRC, and about transparency, we can log the discussions. It isn't like if we were plotting to make Dalek Supreme extinct. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 19:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would like to note that I don't use IRC, so naturally I'm not very happy with this proposal. Steel, if the discussions are logged, no dispute resolution is allowed in the channel and nobody calls the proposed channel "hidden subpage", I have no grounds to disagree with it. Guy Macon, I am actually on the other side of the fence — I have no problems with this page. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If I can toss in one more practical thing about IRC, while there is a procedure that can be used to avoid this problem your IP address is ordinarily revealed when you use IRC, and that procedure is neither absolutely bulletproof nor (especially if you are unfamiliar with IRC) simple. (You can also use a VPN, but you usually have to pay for that though there are supposedly some free ones out there, too.) If you care about keeping your real world identity confidential, then there's a price to pay in at least effort and complexity if you want to use IRC. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Propose deletion of Volunteers' Slough subpage

Talk pages were merged ahead of normal RfC end per WP:SNOW. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:29, 14 August 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.

I propose the deletion of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteers' Slough. The DRN Talk page was split into two pages. The motivation was to hide discussions so DRN participants would not see the discussions. That is contrary to WP policies of openness and transparency. I propose that that page be deleted, and all DRN related discussions take place on this page. --Noleander (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete - A few reasons:

Motivation was to hide discussions from DRN participants. That is contrary to WP policy of openness and transparency
Motivation was to restrict access to clique of volunteers. That is contrary to WP policy of egalitarian editing.
The "Slough" page is not even a Talk page: has no "new section" button
The DRN Talk page was not overwhelmed with traffic or comments: There was no compelling reason to "split" the Talk page into two.
The DRN Talk page is the natural and best location for all discussions about improving the DRN process. Absent a compelling reason, it should be left alone.
The entire DRN Talk page was moved after only 2 days discussion with only a few editors commenting.

My two cents. --Noleander (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I suppose the proposal is to delete this page and move that page back. Otherwise this proposal is a good candidate for snow close. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep unless the DRN cases are split out to subpages (obviously, as it was me who suggested and performed the move in question). The motivation was to decouple discussions from dispute resolutions. No hiding: this page links there explicitly. And this page is indeed inappropriate for discussing any organizational matters, including this particular discussion, which should be moved there. Given that DRN deals with disputes — discussions heated enough — any unrelated traffic is overwhelming. Effectively I was about to suggest using per-case subpages for this reason. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC) updated 02:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I cannot understand this logic. The cases are discussed on the WP:DRN page. The DRN Talk page is for discussing meta-issues about the DRN: changes to the DRN process, etc. WP does not need two Talk pages for the DR Noticeboard. I have not yet seen a clear articulation of how the purpose of the DRN Talk page differs from the purpose of the Volunteer Slough. --Noleander (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of Volunteers' Slough differs from the purpose of DRN talk page in that it is supposed to handle meta-discussions about DRN process, as opposed to discussing particular cases on DRN talk page. Eg. "I believe Editor A is not objective in his application of the policy, could anyone look at Case 1 to prove me right or wrong?" goes WT:DRN, "Editor A in Case 1 insists on conduct issues, please help!" goes to WT:DRN, "What should I do with editor who ignores warnings" goes to Slough, "Do we need to separate pages for each case?" goes to Slaugh. Clear? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No, not clear. All the discussions listed above could be easily handled on the DRN Talk page. There is no reason to split it into two pages. There is no such thing as a class of editors named "volunteers", so no purpose is served by having a page aimed at "volunteers-only". The Slough page was created specifically to hide a comment so a party to a DRN dispute would not see the comment. That is not acceptable. --Noleander (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Why do you reiterate this "volunteers are not special" thing as if someone disagrees? I 100% agree with this statement. Still, I don't see any relevance between the facts that volunteers are not special and that this page receives quite a lot of traffic of no interest to non-volunteers. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Needs discussion definitely. I have a lot of respect for the people pitching in at DRN, but this looks a lot like elitism and self-selecting groups of "in-crowd" folk - and I'm sure most participating here know how well that turns out here on the English Wikipedia. If you are going to set up a page where the general editorship is in any way restricted or not encouraged to post, then you are going to need a widely advertised and solidly supported RFC to get that to happen. Yes, there's a risk that like-minded people will just set up a maillist instead. And oh yeah, that's often received well here too when it comes to light, inn't it? :) I would suggest that you are better off to keep discussions open and transparent and accept some concomitant disruption. Which disruption will only serve as evidence to get disruptive editors blocked when it comes down to it. Franamax (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- I love the broad assumptions the people make. How did you get the idea that "the general editorship is in any way restricted or not encouraged to post" at Volunteers' Slough? Everybody is encouraged to post there as much as to post here and wherever. Just these two pages serve the different purposes, with this one to solve the current particular case-related problems ("Hey guys, the volunteer misbehaves in our dispute, help!!!"), while that one — to avoid disrupting ongoing cases with unrelated discussions concerning DRN in general. Eg. the last 5 hours the traffic here is 3 messages/hour, while the traffic at WP counterpart is 1 message/houre, which is 3 times lower. Why do the disputants have to suffer distraction cause with this chat? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  - Uh, page history would be your friend here, on those "broad assumptions" to which you allude. Please try that again before asking me to name names. And your questionable statistics aside, unless you are going to set up case-specific talk pages (which can be done, but needs templating/botting), then someone will always be distracted by an unrelated thread. There are multiple DR threads running at any time, aren't there? If anything, you should split off the meta-discussions - but for instance at WT:RFA that was rejected. Franamax (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    - On my part, I didn't quite "get it" at first and thought that discouraging disputants from posting was a good idea. As soon as someone objected, I re-thought and realized that it was a bad idea. I don't know what you should do with that if your reason for deletion is people's motives rather than the page being a bad idea. Sounds a bit like thoughtcrime to me, and I am was guilty. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    - Well, as I wrote above, I was about to suggest case-specific subpages, but indeed didn't, as it would need quite a lot of changes. Still, I don't see any logic behind your connotation that if we can't get rid of noise we shouldn't reduce it. And no, page history won't be my friend here, as that particular caption has nothing to do with the goals this page was created to serve. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
      - Guy, since I've not offered a reason for deletion, I'd prefer to move toward my "Needs discussion" comment, bolded above for your convenience. :) I do support you guys, but not when I see you going down the same blind alleys buried in the last 500 million edits to this wiki. Hiving off discussions IMO is not a good idea, and I'm particularly wary of any suggestions that some volunteers are better than others - though as we all know, many come here with less than neutral motives. To both, maybe case-specific talk will be the better course overall, or maybe push ahead with setting up a formal role for DRN as at (Ocaasi?) sub-pages, which would be confirmed by the community. And Dmitrij, I'm still not seeing the specific rationale to split pages, other than random opinions. I'm a rational guy, it shouldn't be all thgat hard to convince me if you've got a valid case... Franamax (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
        See, I had no hidden motives: I wanted a page for discussion that wouldn't be automatically watchlisted by everybody coming here. A page, where I can ask, what should I do with an editor, who misbehaves and ignores my warnings; or where I can start a discussion that would involve volunteers but is of no concern to disputants. I actually don't get, how do you manage not to notice the benefit. As well as I don't get, why Noleander started this discussion here, not there. Still, there was no particular goal to reduce transparency — the question was whether the page would be linked, transcluded or served as redirect from here. And there is no talk about some volunteers being better then others, of a page for privileged editors or something of a kind. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
        OK first off, no I don't think you yourself had any hidden motives in your proposal, I hate resorting to AGF/ABF stuff but from what I've read you had good motives. It was the things I saw after the new page showed up on my watchlist that concerned me. So that's why I think we need broader discussion. Or maybe actually we should discuss on our user talk pages what your concerns are, or email me or someone else who you trust when you have specific concerns. If you are new to DR (not saying you are), you should ask for specific advice. If you are experienced at it, you're generally expected to be able to stand on your own and say your piece in an open environment. But on it's face, what you are saying above is that you want a way to talk about people where they won't find out you're doing it. And I'm saying you need extreme caution there. So maybe this isn't the best place to discuss the specifics? Franamax (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
        I am a novice DRN volunteer. In that particular case there was no emergency; I wanted to ask what to do in such cases in general, without naming any particular dispute or editor. Still, once I bring this question to the spotlight, I risk earning prejudice from the editor who may recognize his actions in my question: he is likely to get the thread as an accusation and take it for my bias against him. This is the thing no volunteer would like (or at least I hope so). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Strong keep. This is not to stop disputants from disrupting volunteer's discussions. This is to stop volunteer's discussions from disrupting ongoing content disputes. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)^{The per-case subpages plan is superior. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)}

Can you show a case where this has happened in the past? The desired endpoint is for the content to be adequately treated, right? Where have, for example, your own expressed doubts or opinions on this talk page resulted in less than adequate article content? Again, with all due respect for the great work you guys do, but I'm not grasping the rationale here, so maybe a concrete example would help me. Franamax (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You should better ask disputants. People waiting others' participation generally tend to get distracted by unrelated chat around. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No-o-oo, I've specifically asked Guy, as he is an expressed proponent. Though since you are also a proponent, you could try an actual answer rather than hand-waving and generalization. When has this been a problem in the past? Franamax (talk) 01:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I started the split discussion when I realized that the question I needed to ask would likely mess up the related case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this "mess up" motivation illustrates the problem with this new page: All discussion about a DRN case should be open and transparent. A comment on the DRN Talk page cannot mess up a DRN case (unless it were uncivil ... but that is another issue). Creating an entirely new Talk page so that parties to a conflict do not see the comment is contrary to WP policies. --Noleander (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It is transparent enough: it is linked to, everybody can see and/or edit it. In fact it is a DRN-focused duplicate of WT:WikiProject Dispute Resolution. And no, perfectly civil comment on the talk page can fuel things, as the WP counterpart is a place where disputes are discussed, and highlighted misbehavior (conduct issue) on one side gives undue privilege to another side of content dispute. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

subproposal: Delete all posts that are duplicates moved over from article talk page. In my opinion, we need a clean start. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment - The insides of how the DRN page is run isn't relevant to the people involved in the dispute. So from that point of view, the subpage makes sense. But looking at AN/I, they don't have a subpage like this, so it seems like this is not normally done. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I'm thinking this new "Volunteer only" subpage is a symptom of a broader issue: In the past month, there have been attempts to create a new class of editor, the "volunteer". Proposals have included special privileges for "volunteers" (only volunteers can close DRN cases); and proposals to create a new admissions test to become a volunteer. We now have a new "volunteer only" Talk page. This is contrary to the basic fact that there is no class of editor named 'volunteer'. Granted, there is a list of editors willing to help at DRN; but that list is no more unique that the list of editors willing to help with Peer Review or FAC. Splitting the DRN Talk page into two pages smacks of elitism: one page for Volunteers, another page for non-volunteers. --Noleander (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- This is not a volunteer-only subpage. It was mistakenly attributed as such by Guy Macon once. Nobody claims it to be volunteer-only. Should I draw a picture to help understanding this? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  - It was one of those things that seemed like a good idea at the time, but as soon as someone objected, I instantly realized it was stupid. (Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia.) --Guy Macon (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I created an RfC to get wider input on this question. --Noleander (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Czarkoff on the "subpage for each case" thing, but I think that the separate talk page should be deleted whether that goes through or not. I'd think that, if we're having meta-discussions about cases that we don't want the participants to see, we're doing it wrong. Aren't we supposed to be helping the editors come to an agreement? How can we do that if our conclusions are based on things hidden away on a separate page? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to a subpage for each case (that has been proposed many times for DRN, following the model used at SPI or FAC, etc). The problem here is different: There was a DRN case, apparently, where a party A was acting uncivilly. Another editor B wanted to comment on A's behavior on the DRN Talk page, but did not want editor A to see the comment (A was watching the DRN page & its Talk page). So editor B created a new "Volunteer only" page to hold comments about party's behavior, so that parties like A would not see the comments. That secretive nature of the Volunteer-only page is the underlying problem here. The DRN Talk page was not overwhelmed with traffic by any stretch of the imagination. --Noleander (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

But in that case, why are we not telling editor A that he's being uncivil and asking him to change it? Why would we want to talk about him behind his back? (BTW, Noleander, I do know that this is independent of the case subpage thing, and I think we're in agreement about this.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Generally because this is misrepresentation of the story. The particular question was about the way volunteer should react to misbehaviour of a kind. The Editor A was warned separately. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a view on how the DRN should be organized, but if there is value to having a dedicated section for the dispute-resolution volunteers as opposed to the parties of the dispute to discuss (as there seems to be for example on the arbitration enforcement board), I suggest that a new and more transparent name be adopted for the page or section. "/volunteer slough" is pretty opaque, and when I first saw it I had no idea what was going on. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Basically per Franamax, and Noleander. There's no need for a page that's only for volunteers, and being that there's no need for it, it does look rather elitist. Despite the repeated claim by the creators that it's not volunteer only: A) this says otherwise; we don't want our discussions influencing them (paraphrase) is a classic veil for elitism, and even if that weren't the case, it makes no sense in a transparent venue like Wikipedia. B) there's simply no need for it unless it is for volunteers only; if it's not, it's redundant with the main DRN page, so it should go. The main DRN page is for case discussion, and the talk page is for meta-discussions. I see no clear rationale for this third page in any of the discussion. I would be for splitting all DRN discussions into separate case subpages, but this "slough" page is a misguided attempt at a solution, and is actually far from the next best thing. As far as the comparisons to Arbitration, that is a completely different animal where a certain amount of special treatment is afforded, possibly for good reason. "Volunteers" are not tasked with the same type of burden as Arbitrators; not remotely. DRN is an open discussion, and volunteers are equal discussion participants. They do not make final effectual judgements that will be scrutinized for years. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:24, 13 Aug 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Ack, what a mess. Now we have two parallel versions of the DRN talk page, and most of the page history is at the "volunteers' slough". Whatever we decide to do, this is going to have to be fixed by a history merge - it doesn't make any sense to have the page history for a long-standing noticeboard talk page in a completely different location than the one where the discussion took place. All the history before the move needs to be moved back here and merged with the current discussion. Things that were added to the "volunteers' slough" after the move need to either be moved back or to stay there depending on context. More thoughts about the general plan tomorrow, but for now I'm tagging this page for history merge. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 18:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Delete - with all due respect for those who support and created the page, it does give the impression that the "volunteers" have some sort of semi-official standing, and that is not the case. Also, what is to prevent someone becoming a "volunteer" for the purpose of a specific dispute they might be involved in? Nothing that I can see. If there were some sort of official standing of the volunteers, like at ArbCom, maybe I could see a separate page, although, honestly, something like their dedicated internal mailing list would probably work better. And, honestly, if NYB can't understand the purpose of the page from the name, as he indicated above, it has to be at least a little too opaque. If something like it is to be had, I might favor a separate section of the section or subpage for "uninvolved editors", something like the separate section for uninvolved admins at WP:AE. As none of the "volunteers" have any sort of official standing, though, we really can't say a sectionn is for volunteers only, because, basically, except for a very few paid staff of the Wikimedia Foundation, we're all volunteers, aren't we? John Carter (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- This was not supposed to be volunteers-only. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- JC, I am definitely still a volunteer here at DRN ;-) Szhang (WMF) (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  - Yes, you had stated above that it was basically intended as an "overrun" page, and I could, in some circumstances, see the utility of such. While I could see some utility to such, in all honesty, I am not myself sure that would be likely to have sufficient real activity, in general, to give sufficient cause for a separate page, this current discussion notwithstanding. John Carter (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Redirect — Diff links to the history of both pages need to remain accessible.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, Mr Stradivarius' suggestion would not only address my concern but would enable the greater part of the edit history to appear as expected in "Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard"'s View History tab as well.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 06:08, 14 August 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.

Close RfC on Volunteers' Slough

RfC was closed, pages were moved. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:29, 14 August 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.

As it is evident that Volunteers' Slough won't survive, I propose to close the RfC now per WP:SNOW. Any objections? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to closing the RfC and deleting the Vol. Slough page. I think that we should now turn our attention to Czarkoff's suggestion (above) that each case have a dedicated subpage. Subpages, among other benefits, may help meet the perceived requirement that the Vol Slough page was intended to fulfill. As we wait for August to go by (so the DRN research can be concluded) we can perhaps think of how the subpages should be organized. The various pages that now use subpages (AfD, SPI, FAC, PR, etc) all use slightly different transclusion/collapsing schemes. We need to figure out which model is best for DRN. --Noleander (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Volunteers' Slough is what used to be "Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard", so IMO the closure should look like this:

All discussions from this page and its heading (section 0) should be copy-pasted to Volunteers' Slough.
This page should be deleted.
Volunteers' Slough should be moved back to "Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard" (name of this page).

Note, I also invited Jorgath and Guy Macon who seem to be the only proponents of Sloath aside me, and thus they are entitled to oppose this proposal.

And another thing: can we actually discuss the transclusion schemes at WT:WikiProject Dispute Resolution? This discussion would certainly generate quite a lot of traffic, which is not particularly needed here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the DR project Talk page would probably be a better location. --Noleander (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No objection to ~~nuking~~ draining the slough from me. I also approve of discussing subpages/transclusions at the WikiProject. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much as per Guy Macon above, both in terms of deletion of page and in terms of using subpages/transclusions for future discussions. John Carter (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with closing the discussion, but we can't delete this page, as we need to preserve the page history. Instead we should move this page to something like Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Parallel history August 2012 and then move the volunteers' slough back here over the redirect that will be created. Then we can split the discussion off from the parallel history page to here or to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dispute Resolution as needed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This page was created 16:19, August 11, 2012‎. Don't think its 2¾-day history is really that important. I would propose to move the thread above (Poll) and the thread below (Cold Fusion) to Slough again, move the rest of it to archive and get rid of it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's not the time frame that's the problem - if the content on this page is used on another page but it isn't attributable to its respective authors via the page history, then it might be in violation those authors' copyrights. (See WP:CWW.) As this is a talk page, there's a good argument that proper attribution is provided by the signatures and timestamps, but simply preserving the page history is a much safer way of doing things. It allows people to view comments that were altered or deleted, and to check that no signatures were faked. It is really the better choice from a transparency point of view. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Mr. Stradivarius. Deleting the page creates problems. There is also no need. Just move what needs moving, and convert the page to a redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

OK then. Where should it be moved? Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/August 2012? For the record: I see no need in preserving it at all, as the signature forgery can be checked at the time of removal, and the comments are properly attributed otherwise. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. Go ahead. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want to keep the title short, the standard name would be Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Parallel history. It doesn't really matter what the name is, but I think it would be best to make it something descriptive. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Done, but I worry about the bot? Or is the bot stuff transcluded here? I could hit back and check, but I'm lazy. Just a heads up :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It is transclusion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:29, 14 August 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.

User having "form trouble" at Cold Fusion

Could someone who is a good template jockey take a look at the Cold Fusion case? The user had trouble filling out some of the sections. Might be lack of clear instructions, or perhaps we need to automate it more. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The form looks OK on my end. I can tweak it so all fields are mandatory - that should solve most issues. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I checked the user's history and he recently filed a case at the 3RR noticeboard without filling out the form. I think Wikipedia:Competence is required applies here. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Rules and guidance

While DRN is supposed to be lightweight, we still need some rules and guidance document:

What to do when parties ignore instructions? Eg., when PartyA writes to "Opening comments of PartyB", when discussion happens with no opening comments from parties. Note: we have WP:TPG which applies here, and unless we have due process, we can't act in such cases.
What amount of previous discussion is enough? Eg., if PartyA opened a talk page thread and PartyB didn't reply, is PartyA entitled to file a case?
What are the volunteers supposed to do? Mediate? Answer questions?
How are the volunteers supposed to interact? Is it free for all, or should volunteers open subthreads for their cuts, or may be it is advisable not to interject unless something nasty happens?
How are the cases closed? May a volunteer close the case before "opening comments" are ready? Is it appropriate to throw out dispute if all disputants already took care of making condensed description of issues?
What to do with the cases when misconduct prevents dispute resolution? Close cases and file AN/I requests? Refer parties to AN/I? Suspend case until issues with conduct are decided upon?

All of this should be somehow documented at least to help novice volunteers (like me) to get into process. Otherwise too much lurking is required. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Strong agreement. We really need to document this, and we should do so before the Signpost features dispute resolution and we get an influx of new volunteers. --Guy Macon (talk)

I've created a mostly empty outline at User:Jorgath/Guide to Dispute Resolution. Feel free to work with it as much as you like. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not particularly sure that "Dos and Don'ts" list is a right way to cope with this issue. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said, feel free to work on it. We can talk here, or on its talk page. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I've made some edits there, which may require copyedit or even discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Pinging to remind, that there is a draft (User:Jorgath/Guide to Dispute Resolution) that needs to be finished by interested editors. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

We already have Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering. I agree that that Volunteering guideline can be improved, but I'm not sure another entire document would be good: too much overlap and confusion. How about picking out several key improvements, and proposing those as a set of amendments to the existing Volunteering document? That way all the guidance is in one easy-to-find location. --Noleander (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening cases with no opening statements

Maybe we could stop opening cases with only one position given? Eg., we had 5208 bytes of chat in Aliya Mustafina discussion before comment from the other side of the dispute, which proved quite unrelated once this other side joined the discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Uh, isn't that what we are supposed to be doing anyways? :) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 23:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, that is a good general rule. But there are situations where comments are appropriate, such as when (as happened in the Aliya Mustafina case) there was already a well-documented conversation on a Talk page and the DRN was just a continuation of that Talk page discussion. Other examples of other kinds of comments that may be relevant before all parties have commented include: (1) asking a clarifying question of a party that has commented; (2) pointing out a WP policy that may not be known to a party that commented; or (3) asking whether the DRN criteria have been satisfied yet or not. Additionally there is a matter of inclusiveness: editors who only occasionally visit DRN may wish to comment on a DRN case when they happen to see the case - do we want to lose input from editors that don't have the luxury of frequently checking back until all parties have commented? Finally, it sometimes happens that a party never comments, which is particularly prone to happen if there are 3 or more parties, and a "wait until all open" rule would mean no one could ever comment. --Noleander (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the "Russian Tatar" thing clearly shows that these 5208 bytes were sent to /dev/null, as the dispute was about completely different issue.

It is important to listen to both sides before making any statements, as the pre-existing discussion makes the things more complicated both by introducing WP:TLDR issue and by leaving an accidental litter one of the parties can use to "push" its side, making the overall run longer. Now, let's have a case study: here we have a new case with missing opening statements and opened discussion. What is to be discussed unless other editors come there? Or may be the three threads above don't make completely obvious the fact that there are volunteers here? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to run through the proposed rationales:

Redundant, other party might clarify the issues without unwarranted byte count increase.
Is this absolutely necessary before others are here?
Either we have quorum to open thread (and then there should be some note like "Starting without User C, hope he will join us once he has time and will") or we have no quorum, and case is not to be started. Nevertheless, we get the cases opened right after it was filed. Naturally the dispute is not going to be resolved in such case.

Furthermore, once we have enough discussion before other side joins, it may decide not to join at all. ("These people side up with my enemy. I'll loose this dispute. But I'm right! Should I dive in if there is no hope my righteous opinion will trump my enemy's lies?")

And the last thing: let's assume that I've filed the dispute with Noleander. I come back in an hour, and I see a caption, telling that volunteers open discussion, comment by volunteer ("Hi! I'm a DRN volunteer and I'm just waiting for Noleander to make a statement. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)") and a caption on top saying "This request is receiving the attention of a volunteer". To me it means that ~~Ebe123~~ wanted to hear Noleander, but then decided to open the case and is listening to me. I would genuinely think so. I'd get mislead. And I'm pretty sure that I already witnessed other editors getting misled either. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of whether this proposal involves creating special positions (it doesn't)

All Noticeboards in WP welcome any input, from any editor, at any time. I'm not sure what you are getting at, but if you are proposing that DRN become a more formal process, with a special pool of Mediators (and non-Mediators are not allowed to comment without permission from Mediators) then you might want to reword your suggestion to make it clear what you are driving at. --Noleander (talk) 00:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Noleander, please, just stop insisting that I propose privileged status of volunteers. The only division I acknowledge here is that between disputants and all other editors of Wikipedia, whom I collectively call "volunteers" once they showed up in disputes they are not parties of. All I propose is to avoid contradicting to the process that is already implemented with the case filer and the bot. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that the first volunteer that responds to the case has a special status as "Filer"? And that other volunteers are not permitted to comment until the "Filer" gives permission? Or am I misunderstanding your point? --Noleander (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I call this "case filer". Yes, English isn't my native language. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if by "filer" you mean the party that originates the case, or the first volunteer that responds. But that is not important. It seems like you want DRN to be more formal, where there is an official mediator (the first volunteer) that waits for all the partys to provide opening statements (and no other volunteer comments during this waiting period), and then that mediator takes the lead in leading the discussion. My view is different: I suggest that the Wikipedia:Mediation process already exists for that kind of formal mediation. DRN should be an informal, lightweight process that welcomes helpful comments from any editor, at any time. If a drive-by editor happens to post a comment before all the party's have commented, that is no big deal: any oversights can be quickly corrected, as happens with any other WP noticeboard. Making DRN more formal and exclusive means that we will be forced to delete valuable comments from some editors, because they just happened to post the comment before the final party opened. --Noleander (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, I propose no special roles. Neither for first party, nor for first editor. I propose to forbid comments in "Discussion ..." section unless "Opening statements by ..." are filled. As I explained above, the "valuable comments" screw the process and make it more likely to fail, which makes these comments by far less valuable. You may have a look at this discussion for details. And I completely can't understand the assumption that valuable comments come before there is something to comment: unless both parties have made their statement, drive-by volunteers just can't reliably tell the nature of dispute, which is particularly evident in case of aforementioned "Aliya Mustafina". P.S.: I call "case filer" the script that may be accessed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want to forbid comments in the Discussion section until all the Opening statements are filled-out, you should probably make a formal proposal, maybe an RfC. As I pointed out above, there are at least four situations where that would be unacceptable. --Noleander (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

May be we could at least discourage "I'm here and waiting" case openings? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we should forbid comments in the discussion section until all the opening statements are filled-out or a certain amount of time goes by. The time out between filing and discussing really changes the dynamic. To allow two disputants a rapid fire succession of claims right after filing encourages turning a fight on the article talk page into two fights with DRN added. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

A waiting period would tell drive-by volunteers that their input, no matter how cogent, no matter if they've read the article's Talk page, is not welcome. A wait time would elevate regular volunteers (who hang out at DRN) into a favored position. A wait time would also make DRN more formal: it would be another step in the evolution of DRN into what the recently-abandoned WP:MEDCAB used to be. DRN is supposed to be "the first stop" in dispute resolution. DRN should be easy and lightweight. As the DRN process gets more and more complex, it is straying from that mission, and becomes more off-putting. No one has offered a reason why the DRN process needs to be so much more elaborate than other WP noticeboards, like RSN or ORN, or ANI, which all function just fine. See WP:CREEP --Noleander (talk) 12:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Then just drop the notice in "Discussion of ..." section, remove "Opening statements by ..." altogether and make {{DR case status}} default to {{DR case status|open}}. The thing we have now only doesn't make sense at all; it only misleads by stating that there is a timeout, and still not offering this timeout in fact.

As a note: I'm absolutely sure that being this formal is the right choice. And again, the "Aliya Mustafina" discussion serves the perfect evidence. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to dropping the "Opening statements" sections. But I can see why they were created: starting a DRN may be confusing for new editors, and giving them a placeholder to prompt them to give their input is sensible. But the Opening statements format is much more elaborate than every other noticeboard in WP. I recommend leaving the "Opening statements" sections, but not making them mandatory. Here is an example: on DRN right now is the case Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Embargo_Act_of_1807. Two of the 3 parties have commented. Let's say a sensible, experienced editor, ED, drops by. ED tends to roam around WP, visiting various noticeboards, AfD, and the like. Let's say ED is very familiar with the article, the issues, and the WP policies. ED reads the article Talk page. ED wants to provide some input, but, if the "must wait for Openings" rule were in effect, ED would be forced to go away, perhaps never to return. Other "regular" volunteers (that hang around DRN) notice when the 3rd party provide their opening statement, and those regular volunteers are the only ones to provide input. That is not how a WP noticeboard is supposed to work. --Noleander (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If I was ED in this example, I would create a subsection "Preliminary comments by uninvolved editors" and drop a note there. And I would probably add a hatnote discouraging responses until the discussion is opened. I would do so once I'll see a dispute I'm familiar with, if I have no time to participate in discussion once it is opened.

BTW, I just try to enforce the process as it is supposed to function right now, while you try to change it back to a more relaxed mode. And this more relaxed mode was specifically tightened a month ago, as it appeared to be ineffective. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

@DC: I read through the DRN instructions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering but I did not see any guidance about "waiting for opening statements". Can you point out the instruction you are referring to? I'm probably overlooking something ... Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The instruction for {{DR case status}} (the default state, gray background) implies that opening statements are already present; if they are not, following this instruction isn't possible. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I'm particularly uncomfortable with the connotation that resolving disputes should be traded for DRN participation. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It may very well be that we can come up with a simpler way to deal with the problems we are trying to address, but not dealing with them at all is not a viable solution.

In my opinion:

We want to listen to both sides before making any statements.
We want to avoid a case instantly exploding into a wall of text within minutes of being filed.
We don't want DRN to be another discussion identical to the talk page discussion that didn't lead to any resolution.
We don't want disputants to think that there is something special about the volunteers, but I think we do want them to think that that there is something special about any new voice (regular or drive-by, regular volunteer or IP editor with no prior edits) who has no prior involvement with them or with the topic.
We want to be able to quickly determine whether to try to solve a (simple) problem here or to refer a (more complex) problem elsewhere.
We want to discourage the practice of disputants going back to the article talk page and saying things like "The DRN ruling was..." We want it to be crystal clear that we have zero authority over anyone.
We want to be able try new approaches to see what works and what doesn't.
We want the rules to be really simple -- easy for new volunteers and disputants to understand.
Finally, we want to help people. Being more relaxed isn't a goal, Being more formal isn't a goal. Helping people is.

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

How about amending the DRN instructions to say something like: "Volunteers are welcome to make comments at any time, but it is recommended that substantive comments be posted only after all parties have made their positions clear in a DRN opening statement or in a related Talk page." --Noleander (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

@Noleander: I think that a special subsection for the valuable input of drive-by volunteers (with no restriction), which should be edited only before opening the case would be more helpful. Such section should be attributed with comment that these statements should not be answered before the discussion is open. Once there is a quorum for dispute resolution (the amount of opening statements allows to believe that dispute may theoretically be resolved on DRN), the discussion is opened and becomes free for all, limited only by content, no conduct rule.

Adding yet another section into the framework would add unneeded complexity. Following up on your "ED" suggestion earlier: what if we simply identify "pre-opening" comments as such. So an editor would write "I notice that we are still missing an opening statement, but I may not visit this case agin; I read the Talk page, and based on the party's comments there, I have some input that may be useful: blah, blah, ..." --Noleander (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's imagine that I file a dispute with you. I filed the form and was redirected to the discussion page, where I see the case's outline, a gray template saying that the case waits for volunteers, an empty section "Opening statements by Noleander" and a notice at the bottom, saying that I'm not allowed to speak until a volunteer opens the case. I close the tab and reopen it in an hour. The changes I see after careful examination of the case: in the "Discussion of WT:DRN" there is a comment by ED ("I noticed the "dyslexic" template on czarkoff's user page. I think he just didn't mean what he said. --ED^{talk to me}"), and the template, which used to say that case is awaiting discussion, now tells me that volunteer (whoever he is) is listening to me. I take this as a license for putting the dispute forward and engaging in discussion with ED, so by time when you come, you see 5208 bytes (two scrolls of the page) of text with whole lot of editors arguing whether it is appropriate to assume that dyslexics don't want to say what their statements say. Or may be even the case is already deferred to WQA, because Noleander is found guilty of disrespect towards dyslexics. The actual dispute you are invited to participate in resolution of is not even mentioned. This is a problem, which is worth some [alleged] complexity, and this degree of complexity, formality or whatever else it can be called is subtle in proportion to the issue. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you give some examples where parties have lodged complaints about comments being made before all opening statements are submitted? Or is it only a few regular DRN volunteers that are concerned about this? --Noleander (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure I can't: the parties don't normally care dispute resolution process in general (as opposed to their case), or otherwise they become the regular DRN volunteers. Still I can give several recent examples of DRN cases that were damaged by preliminary discussion. I can't imagine the party who is complaining about early start of dispute resolution it came for. We delay discussion specifically to get a full picture of the dispute the parties normally can't propose themselves, so I don't think it is reasonable to expect the parties' concerns about this issue. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: there is a draft you might want to contribute to before it gets submitted here for comments.

@Noleander (again): the draft above was proposed on this talk page for collaborative editing before any content landed here; it isn't Cabal-made or crafted by Chosen Minority. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the purpose of that draft guideline? It looks nearly identical to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering. Is it supposed to replace the latter? --Noleander (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It is supposed to inform (1) disputants of what they should expect and (2) volunteers of what they are expected to do. The particular place this draft will assume if endorsed by community (via RfC) would depend on the community's input and Cabal's resolutions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I'll wait until it gets formally proposed before commenting. What did you think of the suggestion above: "Volunteers are welcome to make comments at any time, but it is recommended that substantive comments be posted only after all parties have made their positions clear in a DRN opening statement or in a related Talk page." ? --Noleander (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

IMO it simply reiterates the current notice ("Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.") using more complex and vague language. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my comment right above is plain wrong. I would propose to merge it with current "Discussion of ..." section notice for now: "Parties and volunteers, please do not use this for discussing the dispute before the opening statements are filed — discuss the issues on the {{{location of the dispute}}}." — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

How about "It is recommended that substantive comments be posted only after all parties have made their positions clear in a DRN opening statement or in a related Talk page." That would give readers the guidance, but would still let drive-by editors contribute. --Noleander (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This is ways worse, as it provokes the process in absentia, which is very harmful, as shown above. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Criteria for DRN volunteers

A proposed process to select volunteers at DRN.

With other proposals for DRN, such as User:Ocaasi/DR, we will need a selection process for DRN volunteers. So I propose that for selecting volunteers, we have these guidelines.

Criteria

The user must be in good-standing;
The user can evaluate consensus; and
The user can remain calm, civil, and neutral.

Selection process

The user goes request on the talk page.
The user answers to questions others might ask.
Then, DRN volunteers may decide whether to accept the user.

~~Ebe 123~~ → report 22:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments

I dislike this. One of the things about DRN is that we supposedly take anyone as a volunteer. I'd actually rather set up a system where anyone is allowed to volunteer here, but where there's a process to remove/disallow/censure/whatever a volunteer if they abuse the board. Possibly with a requirement that they get mentorship from a volunteer in good standing before they're allowed to return as a volunteer. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I support Jorgath's idea. I think that the existing policy -- anyone can volunteer, we have no actual authority -- is good. Adding a way to deal with disruptive volunteers is a good idea; better to set it up now rather than in the middle of a firestorm. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I like the other idea too. A disruptive DRN volunteer could get their actions undone, comments removed, and banned internally from volunteering at DRN. They could come back after mentorship and approval from other volunteers at DRN. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 19:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree that we should continue the policy that anyone can volunteer. That is very consistent with WP's egalitarian nature. If someone is acting inappropriately in DRN - volunteer or otherwise - we can gently counsel them to improve their behavior. --Noleander (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I feel the same way as Jorgath and Noleander. Early on we had a volunteer jump in who was wholly inexperienced, not just at DR but at WP in general, and as a result floundered around and did more harm than good. A mild suggestion from a couple of us convinced him to get more experience before participating here. There's always the possibility that we might get a real miscreant, but we can deal with it when it happens. Having been around since almost the beginning of DRN (not that it's been that long), I've noticed that there's always been a core, though varying, group of users who keep an eye on what's going on and are ready to lend a hand if issues arise. (Yes, that means that the Cabal — there is no cabal (long live the cabal!) — is watching you.

) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it will matter more when matching up volunteers with a case that the editor has no overlapping interest, and that they are experienced enough. It might be difficult to judge, but some cases will be simpler than others and new volunteers need to start somewhere. Difficult cases might need someone with more experience.--Flexdream (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to note, that though I propose changes to make handling of the cases more gentle, I'm opposed to limiting the volunteers in the threads they may comment to — in any case the more experienced volunteers (and anybody) is allowed to participate in any in case in any time (once the case is opened), so if the issue needs somehow more experienced volunteer to be handled, it will get such volunteer the natural way, with no specific procedure. If the case obviously requires a lot of experience and very gentle handling (though I can't recall any example of particularly extreme case), it should be deferred to MedCom right away. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Light Speed Speedy Closes of DRN requests

Perhaps it's me and the way I've previously handled DRN cases, but I was under the impression that we don't outright slam the door on DRN requests that haven't filled out the form 100% correctly or missed a portion of the requirements. A recent thread (South Korea and Japan) was open for just over 10 minutes before it was slammed shut. I'd like to propose a minimum 1 hour open life period for DRN cases so that the filing editor can correct mistakes and any other issues without fear of having the door slammed in their face. Thoughts? Hasteur (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Without knowing the specifics of that Japan case, I agree with that sentiment in general. Editors that come to DRN are often confused or frustrated. Volunteers should be very welcoming and cordial. If a case is improperly formatted, the volunteer should leave it open and work with the originator to remedy any shortcomings. Even if the case is entirely inappropriate for DRN (e.g not yet discussed on Talk page; or a behavior issue), it is more polite to leave the case open for a few hours (or even a day) so other volunteers can see it, and perhaps help out (e.g. a volunteer may; choose to go to the article Talk page and assist there). --Noleander (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The reasons given for closing the Japan case are "The other party of the dispute has not commented on the talk page, of which is a requirement here and that this is not a "dispute" but alleged fake information." A couple of thoughts: (1) although the other party did not discuss on the article Talk page, it is possible that a discussion happened elsewhere (e.g. a user Talk page) ... that possibility should be explored before closing; (2) The distinction between a "dispute" and "fake information" is not clear to me: shouldn't the parties have a chance to argue that the dispute within the scope of DRN? --Noleander (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I checked that no discussion elsewhere was done. After 2nd though however, I agree with #2. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 18:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

BTW, the talk page contains a short dialog between two participants, with one of them telling another one that the appropriate page for discussion is another talk page (this comment was removed by editor who filed the case). As it is easy to spot, another talk page contains no discussions. The alleged participants' contributions show no talk page they edited concurrently. It took me roughly 5 minutes to find out that no proper prior discussion occurred, and the closure was appropriate; including severe connection lags and typing this comment. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The point that Hasteur was making, I believe, is that closing a case abruptly (even if the technically correct thing to do) can be a rude experience for the parties. The parties may feel offended or alienated. The question being posed is: Would leaving the case open for awhile improve the party's experience at DRN? --Noleander (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I tend to be in favor of quick closes in certain cases and not in others. (I might also note, though it's not particularly relevant to the general principles being discussed here, that the requesting editor in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#South_Korea has been indefinitely blocked.) This isn't a case of improper form - leaving a blank incomplete, for example - but a case of lack of prerequisites. If it had just been improper form, I would indeed be in favor of leaving it open for correction or completion, but failure to discuss needs to be closed quickly to prevent discussion from starting here, rather than at the article talk page where it ought to be. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You know, it's a harsh thing I'm definitely not going to push forward or insist on, but early closures boil down to either bad faith or RTFM issues, and I consider both of them severe enough to not care at all whether the filing editor feels offended or not. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I closed the South Korea case not because of errors, but as the discussion on the talk page does not seem sufficient (just another party saying to discuss at another talk page, not a discussion we could say. I oppose this step as DRN volunteers should expect errors. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 18:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so it's perfectly fine to slam the door if the forms aren't filled out the correct way. Glad to see the Bueracracy that used to be MEDCAB infecting here is taking root. IMO we've wandered so far from the original purpose of DRN (a light hearted and flexible way to help users resolve disputes) to a regimented and inflexible rule system that ~~I wish you all the very best in your future endeavours as I will be removing myself from DRN. turns in DRN Cabal Robe #3 Hasteur (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)~~ I'm taking the robes back after being convinced at my talk page. Hasteur (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not okay to slam the door for not filing correctly, and we do not at DRN. DRN will miss you. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 19:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, do you fill the difference between incorrectly filled out form and lack of dispute? Please, point me at the place where editors discussed the issue and disagreed with each other. I believe it's time to get that "informal" element of DRN doesn't mean that everybody is free to do whatever he wants and it's OK. This is a place for dispute resolution, and everything else is unimportant here, including but not limited to poor Korean people during WWII and struggle to get one's POV noticed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I sleep and look what happens :/. I have no special authority here, but I'm going to make a few suggestions I think we should implement:
1. When it appears to a volunteer that there has been no discussion on a user or article talk page, a volunteer should detail this in the discussion section of the dispute.
2. Except forum shopping, disputes should be listed as open on DRN for a minimum of 4 hours (unless it's resolved before then...heheh)

I don't want DRN to become too attached to rules and processes. The structure that we now have serves a purpose: it makes it clear that this forum is for resolving disputes, and is not just an extension of the article talk page. It has statuses so the participants and volunteers can keep track of threads. If there are missing opening statements, we should poke the editors within a day of filing, and leave out participants that are very inactive on Wikipedia. We should perhaps consider moving disputes that have substance but lack participation by certain parties to a "holding" page where they can remain for say, 14 days, and only moved back to DRN if opening statements are left. I'm not sure. But we need to all be on the same page. Dispute resolution can be hard for the participants, we need to be accommodating. If they've filled out the form incorrectly and we can fix it, shouldn't we just fix it instead of chastising the filer? If the dispute is premature for DRN, should we not guide them through the steps (discussing on a talk page) rather than slamming the door in their face? I think that's how we should proceed from here. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)