Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dispute Resolution/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Your input is needed.

There is a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (technical)/Proposal by Jc37 to create a new moderator user group that has the content handling powers of an administrator without the user conduct powerst such as block. The process for becoming a mod would be the same as for being an admin. Your input on the proposal would be most helpful. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Easy way to file disputes

Hey all. One thing I've been working on as part of my fellowship is creating an easier way to file disputes. I've created a working copy of the basic layout - the actual text I am writing up but the core is there. To test it out, do the following:

Add importScript('User:Steven Zhang/DRW.js'); to your common.js file

Go to User:Steven Zhang/Sandbox6 and test it out. :-)

Feel free to send any questions or comments my way.

Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 18:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm trying to comprehend the concept: is it an installable extension for those, who plan to cause disputes on regular basis? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If we can identify those individuals, we can send them to Uncyclopedia and let them file their disputes there... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Czarkoff. The extension is an addon at present because it is still in testing mode, and is a concept. I'll be discussing it at Wikimania, getting people interested in the idea and after that a formal proposal on-wiki to have it integrated into the global js file. It's set up this way so people can see how it works and experiment with it. Hope that clarifies things. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 19:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The proposal to implement this can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Changing_the_way_DRN_threads_are_filed. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 16:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

proposal to do away with formal mediation

See Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee#Time to shutter formal mediation? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Brainstorming

Hi all, I'll be holding a session in IRC some point this coming week to brainstorm on ideas for DR. I've set up a poll at this page - just select all the times that work for you. Your input would be appreciated. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 12:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about changing formal mediation

Please see Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee#Time to shutter formal mediation?, in which there is discussion about reforming the formal mediation process so that it is more suited to the needs of the community today. All comments and opinions are welcome. AGK [•] 15:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

WP Dispute Resolution in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Dispute Resolution for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I expect that a Signpost article will result in more volunteers and more cases. My question is this: what do we do if we get a volunteer who really is not cut out for this sort of work? I am not talking about someone who is deliberately disruptive, but rather someone who in good-faith wants to help but has terrible people skills or insists on an interpretation of policy that does not match the interpretation the rest of us have. We could very well end up with a case of the Dunning–Kruger effect. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

We have had that before; I can think of an editor who wanted to help with a dispute case but their edits were rather unhelpful and it took a bit of effort & stress for me to clear up the mess. However, the dispute itself would have rumbled on regardless, so I don't think it really let down our customers, rather it was an internal problem which caused rework &c. We are able to catch these problems and stop them escalating. It's definitely a downside of recruiting but any organisation has that - recruiting still has net benefits. bobrayner (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

taking inventory of DR processes: how about a project wide survey?

How would everyone feel about creating a survey for members (and even non members) about the various forms of dispute resolution? In essence, we'd list all the various forms of dispute resolution, and ask for an honest assessment of their strengths and weaknesses. That would be a good intermediate step before we head for one of the ultimate strategies we've talked about, which is to organize and simplify our various DR processes. Just having a good inventory and a consensus on what each item is there for would be a good place to start. Thoughts? Shooterwalker (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Didn't we just have a survey a little while ago? Although the results might, possibly, be propagated better (gentle hint to somebody watching this page).

I'm wary of surveys which focus on insiders - or the supplier side, so to speak. Ultimately the customers are the random editors who might in future have (or get roped into) a dispute; if we want to find ways to improve DR, their opinion is more important, I feel. bobrayner (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you about the insiders. A broad based survey would be helpful. Let's wait until the other survey results come back though. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The survey results are already out...its here. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 19:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Steven! I created a follow-up post below. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

An interesting case.

This was an interesting case: User talk:TeeTylerToe (look at the last few sections).

Every so often someone in a dispute goes berzerk and attacks the dispute resolution volunteer who works the case. (I would note that it is certainly possible that a DRN volunteer is misbehaving -- if anyone thinks this is the case a calm, factual description here at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dispute Resolution is the right way to address the situation.)

Previously we had Nenpog, who went from forum shopping to personal attacks to sockpuppetry to vandalizing Jimbo's talk page. (See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nenpog.) That one ended up with his favorite targets semi-protected (including Jimbo's talk page), a range block of 32,768 IP addresses from Nenpog's ISP, and Wikipedia:Abuse response contacting the ISP and letting them know that one of their users caused us to apply a range block. It is interesting to see the list of banned sockpuppets -- a bunch of them were banned before they made a single post...

TeeTylerToe decided to edit war with volunteers on the dispute resolution noticeboard who were performing housekeeping tasks. That one went from a one week block to an indefinite block to an indefinite block from editing his own talk page. Not quite as visible as vandalizing Jimbo's talk page, but close enough.

Why am I bringing this up? Certainly not because I am particularly bothered by this sort of thing. I learned long ago on USENET that...

"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time." --Neil Stephenson, Cryptonomicon

...and by now my reaction to personal attacks is a detached bemusement at how wide the variations of human behavior are. It's an interesting psychological effect; that sort of thing used to really bother me. In 1995.

What makes this sort of thing interesting to me is the effect such behavior might have on new volunteers. While experienced wikipedians will likely just report the behavior and move on, an especially aggressive combatant could drive away a new volunteer. So, what is the answer? I believe that the best way to address this sort of thing happening to a new volunteer is for the more experienced volunteers to offer support and advice. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the way to address things is to be unified as volunteers - if a participant is clearly out of line, then we make it clear that their behaviour us unacceptable. Let's see how that goes - I don't think it's very common that participants attack volunteers, but it's something we need to be aware of so it doesn't create an issue. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Parsing the DR Survey to evaluate our DR processes

Special thanks to Steven Zhang for working on the DR survey and compiling the results. Here's a rough inventory of our DR processes, sorted by usage:

High usage:

• RFC: (84% used, 12% frequently, 42% poor/mediocre vs. 26% good/excellent)
• Specialized noticeboards: (70% used, 16% frequently, 41% poor/mediocre vs 31% good/excellent)

Moderate Usage:

• Arbitration: (53% used, 3% frequently, 43% poor/mediocre vs 31% good/excellent)
• Third Opinion: (56% used, 3% frequently, 44% poor/mediocre vs 25% good/excellent)
• Dispute Resolution Noticeboard: (53% use, 45% poor/mediocre vs 20% good/excellent)

Low Usage:

• Informal mediation: (38% used, 2% frequently, 51% poor/mediocre vs 24% good/excellent)
• Formal mediation: (22% used, 1% frequently, 52% poor/mediocre vs 23% good/excellent)
• Wikiquette assistance: (39% used, 0% frequently, 71% poor/mediocre vs 8% good/excellent)

(There isn't enough data to really rate AN/I, AFD, or informal talk page stuff. But they ought to be included in future discussions.)

A few quick conclusions:

• DR usage has a moderate correlation with DR effectiveness: If there's an interesting trend, it's that the forms of DR that people don't like are the ones that people don't use. Vice versa, the forms of DR that people feel are good (or the least bad) are the ones used more frequently. I guess that shouldn't be a surprise on a volunteer project. People will voluntarily use what works, and voluntarily stop using what doesn't work. (This isn't a strict correlation. ArbCom was considered the most effective, but it wasn't the most used, mostly because disputes have to pass a lot of hurdles to get there.)

• WQA and Mediation are in trouble: The survey confirms a lot of what we've already talked about. There's already a discussion about folding up one of the mediation processes, and we've frequently discussed getting rid of WQA as completely useless.

The question that I still want to know is... what's missing from our DR ecosystem? We know that we have 3 processes that aren't really being used effectively. So assuming we fold those up, what do our other DR processes need to do better? It seems that the three most common complaints about DR are: first, incivility; second, long-term POV pushers who are civil but otherwise disruptive; and third, slow and bureaucratic DR processes.

It's still not clear to me where the gaps in our DR system are. But trimming some of the dysfunctional processes is a good first step. Reduce the bureaucracy, and reduce sinks on volunteer time that could be used more effectively.

Any other comments or observations? Shooterwalker (talk) 04:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the other thing to consider is that the perception of a dispute resolution forum is important. Take WQA for example - only 39% (92 respondents) had requested assistance and 25% (60 respondents) had volunteered at WQA, but 73% (174 respondents) had an opinion on WQA - so in my mind some forums may not be used because people think they don't work well. I think keeping formal mediation open is important - they are in the process of changing their policy to make mediation more flexible, so we will see how it goes. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to close WQA

Hi everyone. There is currently a proposal to close WQA. Your feedback on the matter would be most appreciated. Thank you. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Input needed at RfC about the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard process

Input is welcome at an RfC about the DRN process. The RfC concerns the list of DRN volunteers, and whether the DRN process should require being on the list in order to do certain housekeeping chores. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

RFC on dispute resolution

Hi all - I've opened an RFC on dispute resolution, in which I've proposed a few changes to the way DR works. You can find the RFC at this page. Regards, Szhang (WMF) (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

IRC Office Hours

Hi all, I'll be holding office hours session on DR in about 30 minutes in #wikimedia-office. Your feedback and comments are welcome. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

LongchampElectronics.com member and affiliate since 2011 I need to reactivate my website please a answer is request. Sincerely Devers Longchamp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.124.41 (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about large/protracted disputes at DRN Talk

There is a discussion at DRN talk about handling large/protracted disputes that may be of interest to some here. It is at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Happy One-Month Anniversary, BP Discussion! There will be cake in the conference room. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)