IRC office hours/Office hours 2012-12-01(2)
Appearance
[20:01:00] <StevenW> Thanks for chatting, all. Please bug us in #wikimedia-e3 or on-wiki if you have further questions/comments. [20:01:13] <Steven_Zhang> OK, I think that's my queue. [20:01:18] <Steven_Zhang> Hi all :-) [20:01:22] <Ebe123> Hi [20:01:27] <Isarra> Cue. [20:01:31] <Isarra> I mean, hi. [20:01:44] <gwickwire> Hello. [20:01:45] <Steven_Zhang> So, first, an update on my fellowship since the previous office hour session [20:01:47] <odie5533> hi [20:01:55] <Ebe123> And how was it [20:02:10] <Ebe123> What did you accomplish [20:02:14] <Steven_Zhang> My last office hour you were in, silly :) [20:02:16] <Ebe123> (WP:WQA) [20:02:33] <Jan-Bart> ahhh its actually office hours… that explains so much... [20:02:33] <Steven_Zhang> So, thus far, a survey was done on volunteers ([[WP:DRSURVEY]]) [20:02:45] <Steven_Zhang> as well as participants, that one [20:03:12] <Ebe123> Should we get WP:GEO closed? [20:03:21] <Steven_Zhang> An analysis was done on active dispute resolution forums [20:03:27] <Steven_Zhang> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_Resolution_Improvement_Project [20:03:48] <Soapy> hi [20:03:52] <Steven_Zhang> And changes were made to the dispute resolution noticeboard, to make it more effective and efficient [20:03:55] <Soapy> DRIP, eh [20:03:57] <Steven_Zhang> (Also on that page) [20:04:03] <Steven_Zhang> heh, yeah, DRIP [20:04:04] <Steven_Zhang> :P [20:04:34] <Steven_Zhang> The DR wizard in use at DRN has had some positive effect on cases in general [20:04:45] <Ebe123> How? [20:04:50] <Steven_Zhang> Has anyone here seen/used it before? (What are your thoughts?) [20:05:01] <Ebe123> I've seen it, not used it [20:05:08] <gwickwire> DR wizard? I'm not sure what that is/ [20:05:17] <Steven_Zhang> Ebe123: Cases weren't as TL;DR, cases resolved faster etc. [20:05:48] <Coren> Seen not used. My opinion of such things is biased by my technical background, so not useful for something meant as a user interaction component. [20:06:00] <Ebe123> The statement "cases resolved faster" might be bad [20:06:14] <Ebe123> It isn't a good thing [20:06:18] <odie5533> survey results are kinda scary. [20:06:21] <Ebe123> in some cases [20:06:53] <Steven_Zhang> These were resolved properly, but I agree that we shouldn't race to a finish [20:06:55] <Steven_Zhang> :) [20:07:05] <Steven_Zhang> But the key thing is it makes it simpler [20:07:12] <Ebe123> How? [20:07:14] <Steven_Zhang> No complex wikicode needed to file a case. [20:07:22] <Ebe123> The 2nd party must use the wiki [20:07:24] <Steven_Zhang> Coren: ArbCom could take a hint from that ;) [20:07:41] <Steven_Zhang> Ebe123: there's only so much we can do. [20:07:59] <odie5533> Steven_Zhang: Sorry for the dumb quesiton, but how was success of a case determined? [20:08:13] <Steven_Zhang> odie5533: Not a dumb question :) [20:08:16] <Ebe123> If the parties came to a agreement [20:08:32] <Coren> Steven_Zhang: Is it reasonable to expect that the intersection of people who will use DR in general and those who will reach ArbCom is significant? [20:08:35] <Steven_Zhang> And I followed that up at the article/article talk [20:08:51] <Steven_Zhang> Coren: the longer a dispute takes, the less likely it is to be resolved [20:08:58] <Steven_Zhang> that's not the case all the time [20:09:21] <Steven_Zhang> But the further it gets up the DR chain, the more likely a banhammer will be needed. [20:09:50] <Coren> Steven_Zhang: Wait. How did you reach that conclusion by contrast to, for example, "The less tractable a dispute is, the longer it will last"? [20:10:14] <Ebe123> "But the further it gets up the DR chain, the more likely a banhammer will be needed." the banhammer would be needed at the start [20:10:28] <Steven_Zhang> No, not necessarialy [20:10:34] <Ebe123> How? [20:10:39] <Steven_Zhang> If its something minor and the participants come to a resolution early [20:10:45] <Steven_Zhang> then it can be resolved early [20:10:57] <Steven_Zhang> if it's an israel/palestine dispute for example [20:11:04] <Steven_Zhang> it'll probably go to ArbCom [20:11:13] <Steven_Zhang> because they have ingrained opinions [20:11:19] <Ebe123> Hasn't it already [20:11:27] <Demiurge1000> The next arbcom might not have ingrained opinions, though. [20:11:46] <Steven_Zhang> No, the editors have ingrained opinions, not ArbCom [20:11:50] <Demiurge1000> Oh! :) [20:11:51] <Steven_Zhang> though some may argue for both. [20:11:54] <Steven_Zhang> Anyways [20:12:07] <domas> hey, did anyone suggest facebook login yet?! [20:12:18] <Ebe123> No [20:12:20] <Steven_Zhang> As a result of the trial at DRN, it has been proposed that this be implemented in a universal DR wizard, for all forums [20:12:28] <Steven_Zhang> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Reforming_dispute_resolution [20:12:36] <Steven_Zhang> Which was successful :) [20:12:43] <Ebe123> It will take time [20:12:50] <Steven_Zhang> That's currently being developed by a dev. [20:12:52] <Ebe123> Then another RfC will be needed [20:13:03] <Steven_Zhang> Nah, not exactly. [20:13:09] <Steven_Zhang> But the underlying issue affecting DR remains. [20:13:13] <Ebe123> CONSENSUSCANCHANGE [20:13:16] <Steven_Zhang> Shortage of volunteers. [20:13:23] <TBloemink> Lol @ the facebook login [20:13:28] <Isarra> Is dispute resolution intended for incredibly silly things that shouldn't even be disputes at all? [20:13:30] <Ebe123> Not always bad [20:13:44] <Ebe123> Not always Isarra [20:13:54] <Steven_Zhang> Ebe123: not enough volunteers leads to disputes being unattended [20:13:59] <Steven_Zhang> or to volunteer burnout [20:14:12] <Ebe123> But not always [20:14:22] <Steven_Zhang> Ebe123: Redundancy is good. [20:14:24] <odie5533> Where do you describe what changes were implemented to DRN between May and August 1? [20:14:30] <Ebe123> We shouldn't have too many [20:14:31] <Steven_Zhang> To try and learn more from existing volunteers, I'm currently undertaking a second survey. [20:14:38] <Steven_Zhang> Too many is not bad. [20:14:42] <Steven_Zhang> Too little is bad. [20:15:02] <Steven_Zhang> odie5533: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_Resolution_Improvement_Project [20:15:04] <Ebe123> A dispute of 2 editors with 10 volunteers coming [20:15:05] <KFP> Steven_Zhang is an undertaker? [20:15:08] <Steven_Zhang> Lead paragraph. [20:15:21] <Steven_Zhang> KFP: undertaking, conducting [20:15:23] <Steven_Zhang> etc :) [20:15:59] <Steven_Zhang> So, this survey will tell me more about the motivations current volunteers have for doing DR, and their ideas. Hopefully we can make changes to attract more volunteers. [20:16:08] <gwickwire> Just a question on the survey, was there a question that would show how many volunteers actually were involved in cases previously? [20:16:20] <Ebe123> Lets close http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Geopolitical,_ethnic,_and_religious_conflicts_noticeboard [20:16:24] <Steven_Zhang> The first survey was on all participants [20:16:35] <Steven_Zhang> Ebe123: i have an agenda to get through first :) [20:16:45] <odie5533> Steven_Zhang: They aren't described in much detail. So two changes were implemented: 1) the Volunteer Guide box was added to the right of the page and 2) a bot was added that does something? [20:16:45] <Ebe123> I will then [20:16:53] <Steven_Zhang> the second survey I targeted only volunteers. [20:17:18] <Steven_Zhang> odie5533: the bot does maintenance on the page, keeps an eye on cases and flags them for attention if needed. [20:17:20] <gwickwire> Ah, okay. That's fine. [20:17:21] <Steven_Zhang> and so on. [20:17:35] <Ebe123> The bot isn't great [20:17:38] <Steven_Zhang> Here's the two questions I have [20:17:40] <Ebe123> but ok [20:17:42] <odie5533> Steven_Zhang: But yes to the (1) point? [20:17:49] <Ebe123> both [20:18:16] <Steven_Zhang> 1. What ideas do you all have to attract and retain more volunteers? [20:18:32] <Ebe123> Make it a monopoly [20:18:54] <Steven_Zhang> you mean, consolidate the amount of DR forums down? [20:19:09] <Ebe123> closing boards [20:19:18] <tommorris> CLOSE ALL THE NOTICEBOARDS [20:19:22] <Steven_Zhang> lol [20:19:23] <Ebe123> Yes [20:19:29] <Coren> Ebe123: Keeping only DR, MedCom and ArbCom? [20:19:33] <Ebe123> Yes [20:19:35] <Steven_Zhang> Then we end up with one giant noticeboard [20:19:42] <tommorris> …called ANI [20:19:45] <Ebe123> Not always bad [20:20:01] <Steven_Zhang> tommorris: I thought it was DRN :P [20:20:14] <Ebe123> It can do well, but not always (like everything) [20:20:15] <The_Blade> Finding some way to force consensus to stick would be helpful. [20:20:26] <gwickwire> To get more volunteers, we need to make the DRN binding. [20:20:33] <Ebe123> Yes [20:20:40] <Ebe123> It should be done [20:20:42] <Steven_Zhang> One thing that was mentioned in a survey response [20:20:45] <gwickwire> Otherwise, users may feel like they're wasting time for a consensus that someone won't like and will break. [20:20:52] <Steven_Zhang> was to give volunteers some sort of authority [20:21:12] <The_Blade> That's why I'm so much better at handling AE threads; I know that I'll be able to enforce whatever decisions I make. Not so much with DR. [20:21:15] <odie5533> gwickwire: You should see RfC/U... [20:21:16] <Steven_Zhang> to a) Make it more attractive b) Work to keep that and c) Not make it as futile [20:21:31] <gwickwire> odie5533: I have. That's why I don't work there. [20:21:32] <Ebe123> c will fix a and b [20:21:34] <Steven_Zhang> The problem with that is, people yell "bureacracy" [20:21:55] <Ebe123> bureaucracy, not at all [20:22:09] <Steven_Zhang> if we hand out authority and such [20:22:09] <odie5533> everyone here is yelling for it though. [20:22:11] <Ebe123> All the different noticeboards, yes [20:22:12] <The_Blade> Dunno, sometimes it's very simple. Get people to leave a commented-out message in the article text. [20:22:15] <Coren> (a) is a very bad reason (and won't work in practice); (c) could be made to work with mandatory moratoria? I.e.: Anything decided "sticks" for n-weeks/months? [20:22:49] <gwickwire> I like the n-time idea. [20:22:53] <Steven_Zhang> c Could work [20:22:58] <tommorris> so, here's an idea. have an RfC that would seek consensus around a very simple policy: that on DRN, if a consensus was reached in a suitable way (i.e. with an uninvolved volunteer editor with previous experience in dispute resolution who acted reasonably and in good faith), that consensus is binding. that is, unless there's a very good reason not to, admins [20:22:58] <tommorris> will vow to implement it [20:22:59] <Ebe123> Collaboration ArbCom DRN [20:23:17] <Steven_Zhang> but then, makes it prone to gaming [20:23:25] <Coren> Ebe123: Well, it /would/ be limited arbitration. Possibly not a bad thing. [20:23:25] <Ebe123> vow to implement too [20:23:33] <odie5533> I like tommorris's idea. [20:23:34] <Steven_Zhang> whats to stop people challenging it after the time expires/ [20:23:35] <The_Blade> People try to game AE all the time, I can't ever remember it working... [20:23:40] <Ebe123> limits are nessesary [20:23:53] <Steven_Zhang> tommorris: volunteers would need to be vetted. [20:24:09] <The_Blade> And if it's a no-brainer obvious thing, do what they've done at the Muhammad article. [20:24:12] <Steven_Zhang> thus, we would have volunteers and trainee volunteers [20:24:13] <Coren> Steven_Zhang: IMO, a gamable system that nonetheless produces stability is preferable to continuing assaults of IDHT - both for the articles and for the editors trying to work on 'em. [20:24:15] <gwickwire> I wonder if we could just warn editors who open/participate in a DRN case that although the resolution will not be binding, either editor can use the DRN result as a form of previous consensus in any further conduct disputes that happen down the road? [20:24:52] <Coren> gwickwire: Those who have a bone to pick /already/ disregard consensus. [20:24:53] <Steven_Zhang> I wonder if the community would support such a move - no doubt they'd want only vetted volunteers [20:24:53] <odie5533> gwickwire: can't you already do that? [20:25:00] <Steven_Zhang> so some sort of selection process. [20:25:00] <odie5533> gwickwire: to varying degress of success [20:25:12] <Steven_Zhang> then we come back to the bureaucracy argument [20:25:12] <Coren> Steven_Zhang: Perhaps, or perhaps not. I think it has to be asked first. [20:25:16] <Ebe123> The volunteers could get a desision together [20:25:35] <tommorris> Steven_Zhang: so, you have to remember, policy on wikipedia is whatever-admins-feel-comfortable-enforcing. if, say, a notability guideline is ignored repeatedly at DRV, it has sort of ceases to be a valid reason in deletion discussions. same for DRN: all you do is lightly formalise the existing structure. [20:25:39] <Steven_Zhang> (Fwiw, I'll be volunteering again once my fellowship is up :) ) [20:25:50] <Steven_Zhang> yup [20:25:58] <Ebe123> Good [20:26:07] <gwickwire> Sorry, laggy IRC. To all, yes that's already doable, but the consensus would be binding until further arguments are presented... We just wouldn't word it that way to participants. [20:26:12] <odie5533> I don't like the idea of another user class. If the parties agree in DRN to something, shouldn't that be enough to make it binding? [20:26:20] <Ebe123> No [20:26:30] <Ebe123> CONSENSUSCANCHANGE [20:26:33] <The_Blade> Yeah, unless the DRN decided against them. [20:26:44] <Ebe123> obviously [20:26:54] <The_Blade> Just like term limits; they're only for the *other* guy. [20:26:59] <gwickwire> This is a crap idea, and I don't know why I'm saying it: Have a new userright that gives absolutely no rights whatsoever, but has DRNV in it, and then make DRN a user permission. [20:26:59] <Steven_Zhang> odie5533: the problem would be, community would say "well, these volunteers haven't been vetted, they can't decide on X" [20:27:32] <Steven_Zhang> nah, I think it should be done like SPI, if at all. [20:27:36] <Coren> Steven_Zhang: Neither have the ones at AE [20:27:43] <odie5533> But what about cases where the party agrees to a time-limited resolution? Shouldn't that be enforceable? [20:27:44] <Coren> Steven_Zhang: And the community is okay with it. [20:27:45] <tommorris> gwickwire: unnecessary. the problem is that you then get a haves-and-havenots problem. [20:27:48] <Steven_Zhang> Coren: they are admins. [20:27:50] <The_Blade> One could argue that we're all admins, so we've been vetted. [20:27:50] <Ebe123> If editors are vetted for DRN, why not RfA [20:28:00] <gwickwire> tommorris: Thats what I mean. That idea's crap, but its all I can come up with. [20:28:14] <odie5533> The_Blade: you're all admins? [20:28:18] <Steven_Zhang> I think if at all, do it like SPI [20:28:18] <Coren> odie5533: That doesn't work. Nobody who expects to have to "fight for the truth" with agree in advance to abide a decision that might not go their way. [20:28:33] <The_Blade> odie5533; all of us who make decisions at AE are. [20:28:42] <gwickwire> You know, we do kindof impose limits on some things though... Such as voting for ArbCom, rollback (which is glorified undo), reviewer (which imo is kinda stupid w/o PC2), and filemover. [20:29:00] <gwickwire> And OTRS answerers.. [20:29:12] <odie5533> Coren: I don't mean agree to the abitration decision beforehand, but to come to an agreement. And then that agreement should be enforced. [20:29:16] <Steven_Zhang> well, that one is arbitrary ;) [20:29:22] <Coren> Steven_Zhang: Yeah, but they're not "magical" or vetted admins. If AE can be worked by any admin volunteering, what's to prevent a gentler system from working with editors volunteering. Might just want to place a "you must be this tall" bar at the entrance. [20:29:31] <Steven_Zhang> lol [20:29:42] <gwickwire> We could just say that to participate in DRN or anything more than a simple RfC you have to apply, and then any admin can say you're allowed to help. [20:30:03] <tommorris> Coren: yeah, but a lot of the time the reason stuff ends up at ArbCom is because nobody had the ability to say "look, this is stupid, X is right, Y is wrong, shut the fuck up or you all get blocked" [20:30:03] <The_Blade> Basically like the WP:PERM system we have for userrights. [20:30:17] <Coren> gwickwire: Or, even more simply, n edits over m months. [20:30:20] <Steven_Zhang> We don't want to make the process uninviting [20:30:25] <gwickwire> It's kinda like, in the teahouse, we have this issue with new/unexperienced editors trying to become hosts. We have been removing users who arent experienced enough, but not a formal vetting [20:30:28] <Steven_Zhang> I think it might be better if there's 2 levels. [20:30:45] <Steven_Zhang> trainee volunteer, which is anyone [20:30:54] <Steven_Zhang> and volunteer, which, can, well, decide stuff. [20:30:56] <tommorris> DRN shouldn't be a user right. what is needed is consensus that admins can enforce DRN threads. [20:31:01] <gwickwire> Coren: I think maybe a 100 edits in the past 6 mos, or exception, to be able to apply to "train". [20:31:14] <gwickwire> then after that, any current volunteer can promote them to full volunteer. [20:31:22] <Steven_Zhang> no edit count [20:31:23] <Steven_Zhang> :) [20:31:30] <odie5533> tommorris: The problem then is what if all the participants at the DRN are just regular users and the DRN was canvassed? [20:31:36] <Steven_Zhang> Anyone can be a trainee. [20:31:43] <Steven_Zhang> 1 edit or a million [20:31:50] <gwickwire> I'm not an admin, but I personally wouldn't feel comfortable enforcing a consensus from DRN unless volunteers have some qualifiation. [20:31:51] <Coren> This is putting the cart before the horses. Before any discussion about criteria are held, the community needs to consider the idea of binding DRN first. [20:31:57] <Steven_Zhang> but to 'decide' on something, they have to be a full volunter [20:32:00] <odie5533> tommorris: Then it's an impartial decision that shouldn't be enforced. [20:32:00] <Steven_Zhang> Coren: ypu [20:32:04] <Steven_Zhang> yup [20:32:06] <tommorris> odie5533: well, so the admins wouldn't enforce the consensus of stupid DRN threads. [20:32:30] <gwickwire> Can someone please open an RfC on binding DRN? or some other form of 'real' consensus building? [20:32:47] <tommorris> (I'd suggest that RfA would only elevate admins who are reasonable enough not to do so. but in fact, RfA seems to be doing a sterling job of not elevating *any* admins.) [20:33:05] <Ebe123> I will [20:33:09] <odie5533> If an offending party agrees on a DRN thread to for instance not edit a certain article for a week, I think that should be enforceable. [20:33:18] <Ebe123> After the IRC chat [20:33:18] <Steven_Zhang> Should we put this discussion aside briefly and work on it in an RFC? [20:33:23] <gwickwire> Yay. And tommorris: agreed [20:33:34] <Steven_Zhang> If we have time we will come back to it, but there's another item I want to discuss. [20:33:43] <Ebe123> ok [20:33:53] <gwickwire> Steven_Zhang: Let's disuss the other one. [20:34:07] <Steven_Zhang> With the proposed creation of a universal form to file disputes at all forums, we have a problem we never encountered before. [20:34:20] <Ebe123> ok [20:34:25] <Steven_Zhang> At present, we tell users what forums exist, and what you should file there for. [20:34:28] <Steven_Zhang> For example [20:34:33] <gwickwire> Okay. [20:34:47] <Steven_Zhang> Neutrality noticeboard – to raise questions and alerts about the neutrality of an article [20:34:47] <Steven_Zhang> Reliable Sources noticeboard – for discussion of whether or not a source is reliable [20:34:50] <gwickwire> (for example, the blade quits) [20:35:03] <Ebe123> We get the picture [20:35:17] <Steven_Zhang> Problem here, it doesn't work if we aren't suggesting a forum to them, but instead choosing for them [20:35:32] <Steven_Zhang> So, we need to change how we present a forum [20:35:34] <Ebe123> We could have a list with description [20:35:40] <gwickwire> Wait. What doesn't work? Dispute Res as a whole? [20:35:42] <Ebe123> of each [20:35:51] <Ebe123> Yes, g [20:35:52] <Steven_Zhang> Instead of describing the forum [20:36:01] <Steven_Zhang> we need to describe the disputes that go to those forums [20:36:08] <Steven_Zhang> in a neutral way, for example [20:36:36] <Ebe123> What's the problem? [20:36:40] <Steven_Zhang> instead of saying "RSN" or "There's a dispute on an unreliable source" (no-one who thinks it's reliable will pick that) [20:37:22] <Ebe123> You don't think the reference is good [20:37:26] <gwickwire> I shall return shortly. My 'c' key is being stupid. [20:37:29] <Steven_Zhang> We should write something along the lines of "We are discussing whether a source in an article is reliable or not" [20:37:42] <Ebe123> ok [20:37:45] <Steven_Zhang> neutrally describe the dispute [20:38:16] <Steven_Zhang> But I don't have all the ideas, so I'm hoping to get some more ideas on how we can describe an everyday dispute at each current DR forum [20:39:05] <tommorris> BLPN: "There is a dispute as to whether the article fairly represents a living person" [20:39:11] <Coren> Steven_Zhang: This is harder than first appears. At ArbCom level, at least, basically everyone frames the dispute differently. "He's using unreliable sources" vs "He's trying to WP:OWN the article" [20:39:20] <tommorris> ELN: "There is a dispute as to whether to include certain external links or not" [20:39:26] <Steven_Zhang> ArbCom won't be in the list. [20:39:32] <Ebe123> Why not [20:39:43] <Ebe123> it should [20:40:00] <tommorris> FTN: "There is a dispute as to how to cover a subject considered to be a 'fringe theory'." [20:40:01] <Coren> Steven_Zhang: That's not material, I'm talking about perception of the people seeking DR. By /definition/ they believe that the problem isn't in what they are doing. [20:40:02] <gwickwire> back. [20:40:20] <Steven_Zhang> ideas here -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Szhang_(WMF)/Wizard_ideas [20:40:21] <Steven_Zhang> :) [20:40:32] <gwickwire> omg yay list [20:40:39] <Steven_Zhang> tommorris: some don't think it's a dispute ;) [20:40:39] <odie5533> "Within 24 hours of adding an ArbCom option to the DR Form, over 70 new ArbCom cases were opened." [20:40:44] <Steven_Zhang> lol [20:40:54] <gwickwire> Wait, are we supposed to add our own there? [20:40:57] <Steven_Zhang> Coren: Indeed. [20:41:03] <Steven_Zhang> gwickwire: yup [20:41:06] <Coren> tommorris: Yeah, like I said. The person wanting to insert woo-woo is least likely to describe what he's doing as "fringe theory" in the first place. [20:41:09] <Fluffernutter> odie5533, considering they've spent the last month or two alternately not having cases and declining all cases and motions, they could use the exercise :P [20:41:15] <gwickwire> Okay.. EC time -_- [20:41:29] <gwickwire> Wait, dispute or discussion? [20:41:30] <Steven_Zhang> Coren: so we need to word it in a way that it doesn't put the filer on the defensive [20:41:38] <Steven_Zhang> or the filer on the aggressive [20:41:41] <gwickwire> I kind of like discussion better. Less attacky. [20:41:43] <Steven_Zhang> depending on who's filing [20:42:04] <Coren> Fluffernutter: This will change (I hope). 2012 ArbCom was... not on the ball. [20:42:26] <Ebe123> I hope too [20:42:37] <Coren> Steven_Zhang: Why not rely on humans for dispatching? Have everything arrive at a common point and some tools for easy moving to the right forum? [20:43:01] <Steven_Zhang> hmm, have humans send them to the right forum? [20:43:09] <Steven_Zhang> and all go to a holding page? [20:43:17] <gwickwire> This would be technically challenging, but what if we have a Special:Dispute Resolution page that has a form to fill out, and then volunteers can sort through them as they wish? [20:43:23] <Coren> Steven_Zhang: Right. An initial assessment is most likely to figure out whether it's a BLP issue, or a sourcing problem. [20:43:31] <Steven_Zhang> That'd require a lot of DR volunteers :S [20:43:40] <Ebe123> Have the same format on each noticeboard [20:43:45] <gwickwire> Coren: would your idea be a WP: page, a WT: page, or a Special: page? [20:43:50] <Coren> Steven_Zhang: No more than currently, I'm guessing that initial sort is fairly simple. [20:44:41] <Coren> gwickwire: I'm not attached to any specific method; a Special: page implies a ticket-tracker-like database of disputes, though (which may not be an entirely bad idea, but beyond the scope of the current project I think) [20:44:56] <Steven_Zhang> anything is possible. [20:44:57] <gwickwire> I was thinking more of a MW extension [20:45:16] <gwickwire> That way, if it works on en.wiki we could expand it very easily to other projects, after translation if neccesary. [20:45:31] <Ebe123> Wikidata? [20:45:41] <gwickwire> And, also, we could just go to an OTRS type response for en.wiki DR [20:45:46] <Coren> Oh, sure, in an *ideal* word, I'd like all disputes to be tracked in a database -- this way it becomes easy to move them from venue to venue, or to escalate after x-time without resolution, etc. [20:45:48] <gwickwire> which is i guess kind of my idea. [20:46:03] <Ebe123> Bots would compile a list [20:46:19] <gwickwire> Okay. I've officially confused myself. [20:46:39] <Coren> But as a first step, just having all disputes end in a "landing zone" where volunteers can make a first evaluation (including moving to the best venue) is the simplest solution. [20:46:41] <Steven_Zhang> Coren: someone once suggested all cases be like SPI [20:46:52] <Steven_Zhang> resolved, and archived [20:47:09] <Coren> Steven_Zhang: Yep. That's the closest thing we have to a ticket tracker on-wiki right now. [20:47:10] <Ebe123> What do you mean? [20:47:22] <Ebe123> Resolved and archived [20:47:23] <gwickwire> Coren: I like that idea, regardless if its SP: WP: or WT: [20:47:44] <Steven_Zhang> Coren: hmm [20:48:25] <gwickwire> Steven_Zhang: is there another office hrs after this one, and if so, when do we need to be done? [20:48:32] <Steven_Zhang> maybe….because it then reduces the workload [20:48:43] <Steven_Zhang> no, there isnt [20:48:46] <Steven_Zhang> :) [20:48:48] <Coren> Steven_Zhang: It also concentrates resources. [20:48:51] <Ebe123> Why not on #wikipedia-en-DRN? [20:49:11] <Steven_Zhang> but [20:49:38] <Steven_Zhang> reliable source disputes are filed differently to dr threads [20:49:40] <Steven_Zhang> drn [20:50:09] <Steven_Zhang> a form for all disputes would need to accommodate that. [20:50:14] <gwickwire> Users always file DRNs wrong (imo). Over half are usually incorrectly filed or not previously discussed. [20:50:26] <Coren> Steven_Zhang: They need not be. If we have a tool to move from venue to venue, they can rejigger the format is needed. My point, though, is that the filer is usually /not/ in a good position to evaluate what kind of dispute is occuring. [20:50:34] <gwickwire> I think we need some way to not allow the users the chance to decide where their dispute goes. [20:50:50] <Steven_Zhang> hmm [20:50:58] <Coren> gwickwire: Exactly. Have the volunteers make that assessment. [20:51:08] <gwickwire> (not being mean to the users) and Coren: Yay... someone agrees with me. [20:51:28] <Steven_Zhang> we should draft something. [20:51:31] <gwickwire> (oh, and on a second note, I hope you win a spot on ArbCom. It needs you.) [20:51:46] <Steven_Zhang> yea, i voted for you. [20:51:54] <Ebe123> Me too [20:51:57] <Coren> Let's keep the politics out of this. :-) [20:51:59] * gwickwire voted for Coren as well.� [20:52:03] <Steven_Zhang> :P [20:52:04] <Ebe123> I also voted for WTT [20:52:11] <gwickwire> Psh. not politics. Just discussing our votes. [20:52:14] <Coren> (but thanks) [20:52:24] <Ebe123> And voted against secret balloting [20:52:51] <gwickwire> Haha yeah I voted for secret balloting. But only because I didn't want EVERYONE seeing my vote. ON TOPIC TIME! [20:53:57] <Ebe123> Drafting? [20:54:26] <Coren> So yeah, my own two cent is that the best way to simplify the casework is to make sure that humans do the first evaluation and sorting. [20:54:27] <gwickwire> Wow. We all got quiet after all supporting Coren. [20:54:41] <gwickwire> Agree with Coren [20:54:50] <Ebe123> Moi aussi [20:55:26] <Steven_Zhang> hear hear. [20:55:40] <Steven_Zhang> where do all disputes go? [20:55:51] <Ebe123> Everywhere [20:55:56] <Steven_Zhang> -.- [20:56:01] <Ebe123> AN/I in particlar [20:56:04] <gwickwire> I don't understand the question? [20:56:07] <Steven_Zhang> the holding page. [20:56:11] <gwickwire> OH. DUH. [20:56:13] <Coren> He means, what should be that unique target. [20:56:14] <Coren> :-) [20:56:16] <Ebe123> DRN [20:56:18] <Steven_Zhang> :P [20:56:18] <Coren> DRN? [20:56:20] <Steven_Zhang> no [20:56:23] <gwickwire> Special:Dispute Resolution [20:56:29] <Steven_Zhang> lol [20:56:31] <Ebe123> DRCH [20:56:39] <gwickwire> it would have a form for editors to request it, and a tab for volunteers to review them. [20:56:40] <gwickwire> :) [20:56:42] <Ebe123> Dispute resolution case holding [20:56:48] <Coren> DRN/New discussions [20:57:13] <Steven_Zhang> the target doesnt matter, yet ;) [20:57:24] <gwickwire> I don't think we can use a WP: page. I think it needs to be something that can be done right after filing and then way before discussion [20:57:35] <Steven_Zhang> drafting it up is more important [20:57:41] <gwickwire> if people see a DRCH or DRN/New page, they're gonna wanna comment before it's in the right place. [20:57:48] <Coren> gwickwire: I can be a wiki page, at least at first. [20:58:20] <gwickwire> At first sure. [20:58:24] <Coren> gwickwire: If it works well, and would benefit from infrastructure, /then/ it makes sense to talk implementation and commit resources. [20:58:47] <gwickwire> But I think we really need to get an extension in the long term. Or at the very least a Special:page (idk tech, is those the same thing)? [20:59:06] <Coren> gwickwire: An extension is what you implement a Special: page with. [20:59:15] <gwickwire> Oaky. Then we need a DR extension. [20:59:19] <gwickwire> Which makes sense to me. [20:59:56] <gwickwire> As we already have extensions for voting, rollback, and for literally hundreds of other things. [21:00:08] <gwickwire> (just the first two that came to mind) [21:00:34] <Coren> Heh. I'd volunteer to help on the tech aspects, but if I end up condemned to another two years of committee work I'm not going to have nearly enough time. :-) [21:00:48] * Coren coded extensions before.� [21:00:57] * gwickwire hasn't.� [21:01:02] <Steven_Zhang> i can get this done, but i think writing up something concrete first is the next step [21:01:14] <Coren> Yep. [21:01:14] <gwickwire> Where should we draft? [21:01:22] <Steven_Zhang> everyone, quick, switch to oppose :P [21:01:49] <gwickwire> But that means I have to remember my other votes. [21:01:53] <gwickwire> Or they disappear... [21:01:56] * gwickwire is lazy.� [21:02:46] <Steven_Zhang> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Szhang_(WMF)/DR_holding_page [21:02:52] <gwickwire> yay cool beans, [21:03:35] <gwickwire> Coren, not sure if you know anything about this, but I heard from someone with 8RT that it doesnt support javascript. Im getting a Win8Pro in a few weeks, will that support all my javascript? [21:03:58] <Steven_Zhang> windows 8 doesnt support javascript? [21:04:06] <gwickwire> RT i heard doesn't [21:04:11] <Soapy> that would be so sad [21:04:16] <Steven_Zhang> you getting one of those windows 8 tablets? [21:04:16] <Steven_Zhang> lol [21:04:17] <gwickwire> mainly because you can only run IE10 on RT. But IDK [21:04:19] <Coren> gwickwire: I have no idea. I don't do windoze except on my game machine which is, for all intents and purposes, a game box. :-) [21:04:21] <Soapy> I think thought, that what it doesnt support is JAVA [21:04:25] <Steven_Zhang> crazy. Get a iPad. [21:04:27] <gwickwire> I'm getting a Dell Latitude 10 tablet. :) [21:04:33] <gwickwire> It runs Win 8 Pro. [21:04:40] <gwickwire> With all native support for exes and stuff. [21:04:51] <gwickwire> And Coren... What do you use? [21:04:59] <Coren> gwicke: Ubuntu. [21:05:06] * Steven_Zhang uses a mac� [21:05:09] <Coren> (Well, kubuntu - same difference) [21:05:19] <Steven_Zhang> Anyways, we will wok on the draft at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Szhang_(WMF)/DR_holding_page [21:05:25] <Steven_Zhang> the draft idea [21:05:28] <gwickwire> Ah. I tried Ubuntu. I don't like it. No native support for a lot of applications I need. And okay Steven_Zhang! [21:05:42] <Steven_Zhang> And I think it could work well with the idea of trainee/full volunteers [21:05:45] <gwickwire> Macs... I used to be okay with. Until that bar thingy at the bottom came in. I don't like it. [21:06:00] <gwickwire> (I think Coren should be appointed volunteer cabal leader) [21:06:05] <Hello71> the dock has been in for forever [21:06:06] <Coren> Heh. [21:06:08] <Steven_Zhang> no, that's me :P [21:06:20] * Steven_Zhang fights Coren to the death� [21:06:23] <Coren> Well, this was productive. *wave* [21:06:28] * gwickwire screams "FIGHT"� [21:06:36] <Steven_Zhang> Yeah, it was. [21:06:42] <gwickwire> So lets draft! [21:06:55] <Steven_Zhang> Yeah, my laptop is flat now :( [21:07:10] <Steven_Zhang> but I'll be on later in most channels :) [21:07:29] <Steven_Zhang> should we declare this meeting adjorned? :) [21:07:31] <gwickwire> Okeydokie! What channel should we discuss draft on first? [21:07:46] <Steven_Zhang> adjourned [21:07:51] <Steven_Zhang> wikipedia-en-drn I guess