Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard

Proposal to eliminate the Needs Assist and Stale labels

The bot marks cases as Needs Assist and Stale when cases are current and in progress. The reason this happens (I believe) because the bot invokes those labels after a preset amount of time. Several of us have discussed this problem before and the preset date was extended (see prior discussion here) but it is still problematic and leads to confusion and frustration amongst volunteers and participants. I suggest we eliminate those labels and just have five status labels: NEW, IN PROGRESS, CLOSED, FAILED, RESOLVED. What do others think? Earwig, Guy Macon, TransporterMan-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't need to eliminate the Needs Assist and Stale labels. We could simply make Needs Assist like the Resolved and Failed labels -- available but triggered by a volunteer choosing to manually set the status. Needs Assist could become a label that we could use to ask other volunteers to step in and help. :Also, we could keep Stale, but have it kick in after 42 days (6 weeks), which should almost never happen.

We could add instructions to our docs saying that Needs Assist is an invitation for any volunteer to jump in and help and that Stale means that any volunteer can jump in and close the case. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

That's OK with me if they are manually applied at the discretion of the DRN volunteer. Just please take them off automatic as they are currently disruptive rather than helpful. Same goes for the IN PROGRESS label which activates prematurely and keeps volunteers away rather than drawing them. See Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities case as an example.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Needassist currently kicks in after 5 days OR within 5 days and there's been a certain amount of text added since a volunteer weighed in. We could just remove the time period factor, keep the other field. (Sorry I've been away, work has been and still is hectic so I might be on/off too). Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 09:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Earwig can you make this change? Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

We really need these changes.The current system is counterproductive.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to put a note on Earwig's talk page and ask again.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

In case you thought linking my username before would have notified me, that doesn't work if you link the wrong username. Right now, I'm unclear exactly what you want me to do. Can you lay all the changes out in one comment? — Earwig ^talk 17:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It's really annoying when you folks suggest a change, have me implement it, and then act confused about it later. I can't understand which alternative is better. You seem to have a problem with in progress because it "keeps volunteers away", even though in progress used to be open (and still is in the bot's code), which is less ambiguous in that respect. I'll clarify that in progress's label is determined by a template, not the bot in any way. Do you not want a distinction between in progress and new? Then how do you distinguish between cases that are attended and unattended? Do you want to keep it but require volunteers to set it themselves? Then what's the point of the bot at all? It seems every aspect of the bot is constantly being called into question somehow. Not only that, but apparently I'm reluctant to fix problems despite numerous complaints. Well, in my opinion, I've made clear attempts to understand and work around a confusing process that I have no personal involvement in. This isn't working, so I've decided to shut down the clerkbot indefinitely. You know where the code is and you're welcome to adapt it yourself, as specified by the terms of the MIT License. Thanks. — Earwig ^talk 02:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

WTF? Did this admin seriously just get all pissy, take his ball and go home? What the fuck? (sorry but this deserves an outright use of the language). This needs some attention at AN. Sorry Earwig, but you have no right to do what you just did. It is actually great that you made the code and helped the board, but just because you feel slighted (from what i read) does not mean you can just tear down what you built. This is still Wikipedia is it not. Where was the discussion for your actions? Where is the consensus?--Mark Miller (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I am willing to (try) and get this bot running again (at least), but I am unsure how much maintenance I will be able to do on it in the near future. However, I will be able to run it 'as is' for a while, then attempt to impliment this change, if everyone is happy with this? --Mdann52talk to me! 07:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I think Steven wishes the bot to continue. I support your generous offer. I hope others will as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Earwig, first let me start by saying that I know absolutely nothing about scripts or coding or bots or how they work, so this question may be a bit awkward. We had 3 automated processes at DRN: (a) Requesting and posting cases and notifying the participants; (b) the status block and its updating; and (c) archiving (c1) stale and (c2) closed cases. Which of those processes are affected by the closing of your bot? We need to know so that we know what to do manually. (Just for the record, I was okay with the bot working just as it did. Some of the suggestions, indeed most of the suggestions, were fine with me, but I was also fine with things as the way they were, which is the reason I never weighed in here about them.) I think that the closing of the bot only affects (b) and (c1). Is that right? If that's the case then we can muddle along until we come to agreement about how the (b) part should work. Thanks for all you've done. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'm pretty sure the bot had nothing to do with (c) at all – normal archiving bots handled that. (b) was the bot's main job, and it also handled part of (a) (notifying participants if they weren't already notified, but this in itself is somewhat buggy). — Earwig ^talk 21:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@The Earwig: Thank you for the clarification, Earwig, and for all the help and support you have provied. If we can get our act together, I hope we can call on you again. @All DRN volunteers: Okay, folks, all we have to do in lieu of the bot working is to make sure all participants are notified and to manually scan through the cases to check their statuses. We used to do that before the status box made it easier. We can also talk about what changes we want made to the status box, if we want it at all. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52:, if you could get some bot running temporarily (as DRN does have a fair bit of upkeep without it) at least for the time being, that'd be appreciated. Definitely agree the function of the bot needs to be re-thought, but I think the time that our volunteers have is best spent resolving disputes rather than doing filing work, so for the time being let's have a bot that does the basics (as the previous one did) and we can discuss the details about changing it below. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 09:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@Steven Zhang: I am planning to submit a BRFA to get approval shortly (hopefully, we can push for speedy approval, especially as it is trusted existing code). I have not yet got it fully set up on labs, so I will have to run it manually from my PC for a few days, which is less than ideal, but should suffice. --Mdann52talk to me! 10:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, most appreciated. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 10:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Coordinator

I've listed myself as acting coordinator in lieu of Steven Zhang's early departure from the role.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Keithbob, we may need you to hold over a few days into June. Since Thehistorian10, the person signed up for June-July, has not edited WP since October 20, I emailed him and received a prompt reply back that he does intend to return and take the position once his university exams are complete on June 4, but that he may not be able to do much until after that date. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm pretty busy myself these days but I seem to be able to find an hour most days to come to DRN and do some coordination work. Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

At present the project page says the coordinator role is vacant. I thought that would auto update after I put the coordinator template on my Volunteer template [1] but that hasn't happened. Any ideas?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Needs to be updated at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Co-ordinator/Current. I've updated it. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 09:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Steve.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about all the fuss regarding my term as coordinator - real life got in the way (mostly University exams - but I'm back, and ready to begin my term. I would however like someone else in the background to "guide" me on what to do for the first few days. I've had a look at the current status of the cases we're currently hearing, and they're either closed or being dealt with. --The Historian (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Change to DRN filing form requested

Per a prior discussion and consensus I've requested a change to the filing form. The request can be seen here. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Where do I go?

Timeshare tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I was making a few edits to timeshare tour, and there's an editor sitting-on/camping the article reverting every change I make. He's also calling me names in the talk page and making unfounded accusations. Finally, he's dismissing points I'm making about the tone and content of the article. Where do I go for help on that? Thanks you for any help. 66.67.50.210 (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you need to take your concern to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You've posted this on the DRN Talk page, where the Noticeboard and its practices/policies are discussed, not on the Noticeboard itself. Dwpaul ^Talk 16:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Update: The editor in question has indicated he/she has moved on and left the article and the DRN case that was filed has now been closed as a result. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The DRN bot

Rather than point fingers and lay blame, let's take a fresh approach and define requirements for what the DRN bot should do. Frankly there are editors who are of the viewpoint "I said I wanted this three weeks ago when I told you about it yesterday, why isn't it implemented yet?" or "I think this is a good idea but I have no consensus discussion to back it up, so just make it happen". That certain volunteers have driven away one of the most prolific bot operators with constant haranging is a clear indicator that DRN does not have it's ducks in a row. Start by defining what the process should be, then define how the templates should be used, then define how the bot operates. I note from a quick review that there will need to be a handoff of the DRN case database so that we can continue forward. So can we agree to put down the clubs and work twords defining what the DRN process should be? Hasteur (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a pretty good plan to me. We've gone here at DRN from having a fearless leader who called most of the shots (i.e. Steve) to being largely on our own. If we're going to involve outside help like Earwig, then we need to be sure that we have consensus on what we're going to do before we ask for their help. I'm not casting any blame at anyone here; in the past even in Steve's absence any one of us who's had a good idea could propose it here on the talk page and unless someone objected then go ahead and boldly implement it. It's just that in this particular case the horse got somewhat in front of the cart. We're probably to the stage that we need to be more certain of agreement about changes here on the talk page before going forward individually with changes, perhaps with a going-once, going-twice kind of announcement procedure. Personally I think we can live without the status box until we can come to some agreement on how it should work, if the closing of the bot doesn't mess up other functions, such as request posting and participant notification. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I propose a new rule: we get to openly discuss anything bot-related on this talk page, but the bot operator (whoever that may be) is instructed to not interpret any such discussion as an instruction or request. When we have consensus as to what we want, we will post a request on the bot's talk page. The bot operator is very much welcome to join our discussion here, but only as an ordinary editor who happens to have a lot of knowledge about the bot.

And, if possible, I wouldn't mind if we came out of this with a bot that isn't named after a particularly disgusting insect. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@TransporterMan:, yeah, I'm kinda sorry about that everyone (me abandoning DRN), life nowadays has become so overloaded with chapter work, my job, and work life that I just don't have time to scratch my butt, let alone lead a major Wikipedia process. It's kinda why I created the co-ordinator post, so they could pick up the torch from me on a rotating basis. I think that from the data that we've captured when I was a fellow, we know that in the past, the status box has helped as it's made us more aware that "oh crap, that dispute has been there for 3 days and no one has assisted with it" or "this has been stale for 3 days, maybe it's time to check up on it" rather than just guessing, or having to dig through threads manually. I think we need to maybe look back through recent time on DRN, and try and identify the shortcomings we face at the moment, and then look at ways to address the problems, then make changes based on those, rather than the "let's make this change, see if it works" approach that has occasionally been taken in the past.

Speaking personally, I'm going to commit to spending at least 1 hour a day on-wiki, every day. It's been far too long that I've not been on here, like, 6 months plus have barely been around, and I need to still be active here, both at DRN and elsewhere. It's probably going to take some time for me to be an effective mediator again (let's be honest, I've not done it much for three years) but I hope that I'll one day have enough free time to be like I used to be. For now, I'm just going to have to give it an hour a day. It's really all I have to spare. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 09:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I kinda liked the name of the bot. But I agree we with all of the above.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Having the bot operator develop code in isolation from the people who are going to be primarily interacting with the bot's output is a Grade-A recipe for disaster. If a discussion about changing the bot is brought up, before we get too far down the path of defining requirements, the bot operator should get the opportunity to say if certain things are bad ideas or will be particularly tricky to implement. Obviously the Bot Operator can at their discretion start working on mockups of how certain portions will work to make sure that we don't get into a tire swing disjunction. Hasteur (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to ask the bot operator not to take a discussion as a request for any work. Let us come to a consensus before the operator begins the work. But I think the operator should be a part of any discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with both of the comments above. Here is an idea I have used before: come up with a detailed procedure that tells a human to do what you want the bot to do, and have several volunteers follow the instructions, actind as a human bot. Meanwhile, refine the procedure, and when everyone is happy, them automate it. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I would also add that simple is good. I think the prior bot tried to get fancy and had too many features and too many labels for case status. Obviously we did not have a good system of communication with the bot manager because many DRN volunteers were very frustrated with the system and yet the way in which their feedback was communicated to the bot operator resulted in frustration from that end too. One idea is to have 3-4 experienced DRN volunteers set up a subcommittee and work with a new bot operator to design a simple system that meets the needs of the DRN volunteers. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on at the bot approval request about when, if, and how to restart the bot. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I've updated the template using this version of the board. Please give your thoughts, and if you agree, please comment so at the bot approval request above so that we can put pressure on BRFA to let us move forward with the simple summary table. Hasteur (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Reminder to all volunteers

Especially while the bot is down, but really any time, remember that it is always best to identify yourself as a volunteer when you first edit a case. If you don't do that it isn't clear to the participants or to other volunteers why it is that you're editing the case, whether you're coming in as a volunteer or as a missed disputant or as a new disputant or something else. Welcoming the participants in the dispute is a good idea, too, as it helps set the tone for the case. How you do it is up to you, but I usually start my first edit with: "Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer here..." Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

good point-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Keithbob PING! Reminding you that the DRN bot is down, so that also means you need to adjust the {{DR case status}} template if it would have potentially qualified for a new status. Take a look at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DRN clerk bot to see the effort that is being made to get the automated summaries put back in place. Hasteur (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs wants his case to move forward...

But there is an active ANI about the editor. While that ANI is on another subject it does touch on this subject . if another volunteer would like to re-open it I will not object or revert.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It's unfair to punish Tutelary for something that's unrelated to the complaint against me at ANI. Just take my name out of this and be done with it. I've just about had it with Wikipedia anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have a difficult time with perspective. I suggest you let this go. Further bad faith accusations will only be further example of why you have problems.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You still haven't told me who or where this subject was brought up on the ANI complaint. I ask a fair question and you attack me. Don't lecture me about bad faith. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, it's not "my" case. Tutelary brought it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to reopen this, but I can't because I have a conflict of interest with one of the participants which might be seen as biasing my actions. It might help some other volunteer make that decision (i.e. either to reopen the case or second your action with a note here), Mark, if you might say how you see this case touching on the matter in dispute at ANI. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Teifling, the user who initiated the ANI discussion agrees that (1) this case has no connection to his ANI posting; and (2) this case is more important because it deals with an external matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I am the "Tutelary" that Baseball bugs is talking about. I filed the DRN because even after discussion on the talk page, and the reference desk we still disagree, but for different reasons. I feel that a mediator would be able to center the discussion on what actually matters, and in a civil position, decide what's the best course of reaction, especially due to WP:BLP (Though whether it applies is curious, that can be discussed too.) I still would like to participate in this DRN, thanks. Tutelary (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

This DR was going along fine until Miller, for reasons known only to himself, decided to shut it down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

More to the point - the discussion at the article talk page appears to be reaching a consensus, and this DRN case would likely not make the consensus arrive more quickly, nor is DRN a reasonable substitute for ongoing discussions at the article talk page. Collect (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I believe that it is not. There is a discussion on that page, but no consensus. It evolved into trivialities in which I hope to solve here. Adding onto that, I have seen multiple DRN's closed because the main discussion was continuing on the talk page, which I hoped would not happen to this one. Tutelary (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Generally we don't allow issues to be active in more than one venue and I understand Mark Miller's concern. However, having looked the ANI I don't see any significant overlap and feel its OK to let the DRN case remain open on that basis. However, the discussion on the article talk page is ongoing and has not yet ripened to a degree in which DNR seems relevant. I would suggest the DRN be closed on that basis and that the discussion be given a chance to mature further. If there is still no successful outcome then I would suggest a WP:RfC with a notification at WP:BLPN. This issue concering method of death for a recently deceased person is a common BLP dispute.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind that the case has been re-opened, that is why I made the thread here, however, if you read the DRN it brings up the reference desk several times and the ANI is about Baseball bugs and the reference desk, then the ANI also touches on the DRN case. The issue is, we do not allow multiple venues for DR. This was pretty cut and dry to me. I suggest leaving this request open regardless of all concerns after it has since been re-opend by Guy. I think we should at least resepect the re-opening and allow the participants to go for it. Obviously I recuse my self.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The reference desk was mentioned in the context that the dispute originally occurred in that situation, then that discussion was closed, moved to the talk page, where it still wasn't resolved. Tutelary (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Every day, the handful of volunteers here have to make decisions based on the consensus discussions we have had over opening and closing and other such matters. This had overlapping content and disputes/complaints found at other DR venues that we try to respect. The reference desk was not just mentioned. It appears to be a part of this dispute or it would not have been brought up. This is just a reason, it is not an excuse.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to ANI? Because the Amanda Todd thing was not mentioned explicitly in terms of content, but in the formation that the DR close was unsuited. If you're referring to something else, please point it out. Tutelary (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

"Past dealing" DRN guideline

I have added content to our DRN guideline that were not previously there, that seem to be appropriate (the bolded parts are the new additions):

*If you have had past dealings (either positive or negative) with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in the dispute which would give the appearance of bias, do not act as a volunteer on that dispute or open or close the dispute. If an editor objects to your involvement in a case, you should withdraw from the case or initiate a discussion on the DRN talk page so the community can decide if a new volunteer should step in.

As always, feel free to revert if anyone disagrees or it is felt that a discussion should begin first.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

(Copied from my talk page:) I tweaked what Mark put in and removed the appearance part; the Wikipedia community is too narrow and our volunteer ranks are too small to get that restrictive, I'm afraid. Remember that the "real" rule is what's given in the header of the main DRN page and that it is very carefully balanced: It leaves the decision on bias up to the good faith of the volunteer unless someone objects (indeed anyone, not just a participant in the dispute) and then forces the volunteer to either step aside or take it to the DRN talk page for a decision. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Like--Mark Miller (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Filing of DRN first, and while open later filing of ANI, AE etc

Although the speedy close reason that ANI or AE already has jurisdiction at time of filing is clear enough, but the text does not say anything about what happens if the ANI/AE/etc is filed after the DRN case is already opened. Does venue auto-transfer at that point and if so can we say something that says so? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

This isn't documented because it depends on certain ANI/AE behaviors, but what usually happens is this; if the same person files at multiple venues we ask him if he wants to request a closing. If another party files at ANI or AE during an ongoing DRN, ANI and AE tend to kick it back to us and tell the person to finish the DRN case before filing elsewhere. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Notable exceptions include BLP violations, outing, and legal threats. Those have priority over any dispute resolution forum and get dealt with immediately. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd just like to butt in here and say that the ANI was not about the specific case of Amanda Todd, but Baseball Bug's behavior. It did not even touch on Amanda Todd, except in the case that the DR was unnecessarily closed. Guy then reopened it, and instructed it to continue. It should continue, and I am very willing to engage in it. Tutelary (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy closing - Can long threads still fail the "extensive discussion" test?

This thread relates to this revert. I had tried to add the struck out text to the "no prior discussion" reason for speedy close

"Parties have not discussed the issue in detail in a talk page (the discussion can be in an article talk page or a user's talk page). The mere fact that one or more threads exist is insufficient. The thread(s) must clearly articulate desired content changes in order to avoid this pitfall."

Disclaimer, I'm an involved party in a current case in which this (in my opinion) is a factor. But I waive any claim of reliance on the outcome of this discussion in that case because I think it is still a good idea for other cases in the future.

The reverting ed's edit summary asserts this is a controversial issue, so let's take a quick reading..... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

POLL - Does a GishGallop-Forum thread satisfy the 'extensive discussion' criteria?

• (A) Yes, if there are words on the talk page, DRN volunteers do not assess their content so we don't really label GishGallop/forum threads as GishGallop/forum threads.
• (B) No, if DRN volunteers can't readily determine what specific content change is being advocated in the talk page thread, or the specific reasoning in support, then the WP:BRD cycle is incomplete and DRN is premature.
• (C) Other (___elaborate___)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

!votes and discussion

• B For three reasons

1. The instructions don't say some random "extensive discussion" must exist in the ether. Rather, the instructions say the specific desired changes have to be discussed. By their nature, GishGallop/forum postings do not articulate a specific desired change or the reasoning for it and should not count.

2. In WP:BRD it is implicit that the D has to specifically relate to the B. GishGallop/forum threads that fail to say "I want change X because Y based on RS-1 and -2" (or equivalent) do not satisfy the "D" in BRD.

3. Pursuant to WP:TALK, editors may delete other editors' GishGallop/forum threads as being "off-topic". A deletable off-topic discussion should not be credited with satisfying DRN's "extensive discussion" criteria.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of the reverted edit related to this principle

If there is consensus that GishGallop/forum threads don't open the door to DRN then there are various ways to address that. I'm not wedded to my approach (see opening post top section strikeout text), but until someone offers another suggestion I think we should add that to the project page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)