Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Parallel history

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MOVED
Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard

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.

blockage of new facts and information on the entry of Sislej Xhafa[edit]

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)[reply]

Propose deletion of Volunteers' Slough subpage[edit]

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)[reply]

Delete - A few reasons:

  1. Motivation was to hide discussions from DRN participants. That is contrary to WP policy of openness and transparency
  2. Motivation was to restrict access to clique of volunteers. That is contrary to WP policy of egalitarian editing.
  3. The "Slough" page is not even a Talk page: has no "new section" button
  4. The DRN Talk page was not overwhelmed with traffic or comments: There was no compelling reason to "split" the Talk page into two.
  5. 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.
  6. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]
                • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • Comment - I created an RfC to get wider input on this question. --Noleander (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • This was not supposed to be volunteers-only. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • JC, I am definitely still a volunteer here at DRN ;-) Szhang (WMF) (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • Redirect — Diff links to the history of both pages need to remain accessible.—Machine Elf 1735 02:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Per-case subpages[edit]

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

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

Poll[edit]

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

  • Support as OP. Not to be implemented in August per Szhang's comment below. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC) updated 21:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seems obvious and logical, and "slough" is unappealing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - at least until the end of August - as DRN is currently undergoing a trial to see if the changes that were implemented at the start of the month had an effect on DRN's effectiveness. I do realise that the pages will be transcluded in a similar fashion to the way that DRN is structured now, but I still worry that watchlisting will be an issue. The whole point of DRN is to make it easy to file disputes, and easy to volunteer. In my opinion, the fact that anyone (not just regulars) can watchlist DRN and be updated on the progress of a case as it progresses is a good thing, not a bad thing. I think we should wait for the results of August before we do anything else, but in my opinion this may cause more issues than it resolves. I'm always flexbile though, but I do not understand the rationale for this change. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do your posts reflect your personal opinions or the WMF? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above is my opinion as a fellow primarily, because such a change at the present time would impact my research as DRN is undergoing an experiment. It reflects my opinion as a volunteer as well - but I thought it'd be silly to sign under both usernames. My views are always my own however, I just see things differently depending on how I look at it. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the particular date doesn't matter much. The poll is about general principle. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Close RfC on Volunteers' Slough[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Volunteers' Slough is what used to be "Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard", so IMO the closure should look like this:
  1. All discussions from this page and its heading (section 0) should be copy-pasted to Volunteers' Slough.
  2. This page should be deleted.
  3. 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)[reply]
Yes, the DR project Talk page would probably be a better location. --Noleander (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Works for me. Go ahead. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

User having "form trouble" at Cold Fusion[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Parallel_history&oldid=1142665602"