IRC office hours/Office hours 2012-07-28

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
[2012-07-29 05:00:06] <Steven_Zhang> ookay.
[2012-07-29 05:00:11] <Steven_Zhang> Starting the log now
[2012-07-29 05:00:20] <iDangerMouse> Okk
[2012-07-29 05:00:49] <Keegan> I'm here, you can start now
[2012-07-29 05:01:20] <TransporterMan> And this is better than talk pages, how?
[2012-07-29 05:01:28] <Ebe123> Faster
[2012-07-29 05:01:33] <Mh7kJ> lol
[2012-07-29 05:01:34] <Steven_Zhang> OK.
[2012-07-29 05:01:39] <TBloemink> Ok
[2012-07-29 05:01:41] <Keegan> This is about the Olympics, right?
[2012-07-29 05:01:41] <Steven_Zhang> So, STARTING now.
[2012-07-29 05:01:43] <Mh7kJ> I wonder if there are any more
[2012-07-29 05:01:45] <iDangerMouse> Faster Faster Obey Your Master - Metallica Master of Puppets/
[2012-07-29 05:01:46] <Ebe123> People are here to discuss quick
[2012-07-29 05:01:59] <Steven_Zhang> I'm here to discuss my DR fellowship
[2012-07-29 05:02:07] <Steven_Zhang> along with the ideas we have for improvement
[2012-07-29 05:02:23] <Ebe123> Read meta:Office hours
[2012-07-29 05:02:23] <Steven_Zhang> I don
[2012-07-29 05:02:24] <Steven_Zhang> t
[2012-07-29 05:02:26] <Guest99883> Guy Macon is here - no idea why it just changed my nick to to Guest99883
[2012-07-29 05:02:32] <Steven_Zhang> I don't have any set agenda though
[2012-07-29 05:02:49] <Steven_Zhang> So I'm here to answer questions, take feedback and so on
[2012-07-29 05:03:11] <iDangerMouse> Erm
[2012-07-29 05:03:15] <iDangerMouse> Set it to invite only ?
[2012-07-29 05:03:17] <iDangerMouse> or something
[2012-07-29 05:03:18] <Mh7kJ> another one
[2012-07-29 05:03:22] <Mh7kJ> please just set +r
[2012-07-29 05:03:29] <iDangerMouse> or what he said
[2012-07-29 05:03:35] <TBloemink> We have to
[2012-07-29 05:03:35] <Steven_Zhang> Some people here arent registered...
[2012-07-29 05:03:40] <TBloemink> Well
[2012-07-29 05:03:42] <Ebe123> How is the js script supposed to look like when used? The Wikilove thing?
[2012-07-29 05:03:43] <iDangerMouse> Tough
[2012-07-29 05:03:46] <iDangerMouse> they can suffer
[2012-07-29 05:03:49] <Ocaasi> Steven_Zhang: can you start with an overview of what you learned at Wikimania and what you think the next steps are?
[2012-07-29 05:03:55] <TBloemink> You can unset it, but I'd rather have the trolls out
[2012-07-29 05:03:56] <Steven_Zhang> Sure.
[2012-07-29 05:04:08] <Guest99883> I am going to log off and try again.
[2012-07-29 05:04:31] <iDangerMouse> So are we starting ?
[2012-07-29 05:04:37] <Steven_Zhang> OK, at Wikimania, well, it was really about presenting my findings
[2012-07-29 05:04:51] <Ocaasi> were there any major criticisms you received?
[2012-07-29 05:05:34] <Steven_Zhang> Not really.
[2012-07-29 05:05:35] <Steven_Zhang> The audience was pretty receptive.
[2012-07-29 05:05:42] <iDangerMouse> Steven_Zhang: Go on
[2012-07-29 05:06:20] <Steven_Zhang> I learned from my findings what I thought was already the case - that dispute resolution needs change
[2012-07-29 05:06:35] <iDangerMouse> Been like that for months.
[2012-07-29 05:06:42] <Steven_Zhang> the processes are currently too slow and complex
[2012-07-29 05:06:52] <Ebe123> Why? He's good
[2012-07-29 05:06:52] <iDangerMouse> Agreed Steven_Zhang
[2012-07-29 05:07:08] <Ebe123> Agree
[2012-07-29 05:07:34] <TransporterMan> I sure as heck don't want to do it
[2012-07-29 05:07:36] <worm_that_turned> At what level are we looking for change? Basic disputes, all the way up to say, arbcom?
[2012-07-29 05:07:47] <Steven_Zhang> worm_that_turned: plan is to start at the bottom
[2012-07-29 05:07:52] <Steven_Zhang> work to the top gradually
[2012-07-29 05:07:53] <fluffernutter> dispute resolution needs teeth
[2012-07-29 05:08:03] <worm_that_turned> So, right from BRD?
[2012-07-29 05:08:04] <Demiurge1000> ... pulling!
[2012-07-29 05:08:14] <sikob> steve, can you talk a bit about what's moved since wikimania?
[2012-07-29 05:08:15] <Steven_Zhang> My first target has been DRN: most disputes enter the DR system there
[2012-07-29 05:08:19] <worm_that_turned> or when the D in BRD fails?
[2012-07-29 05:08:20] <worm_that_turned> ah ok
[2012-07-29 05:08:23] <Steven_Zhang> Sure, getting to that :-)
[2012-07-29 05:08:28] <Demiurge1000> Or maybe more teeth at the lower end, less teeth at the top.
[2012-07-29 05:08:32] <Steven_Zhang> Since Wikimania, a few things have happened.
[2012-07-29 05:09:01] <TransporterMan> There's a large sentiment for binding content DR, but nothing ever gets passed
[2012-07-29 05:09:11] <Ocaasi> what would 'binding' mean exactly
[2012-07-29 05:09:15] <Steven_Zhang> A new way to file disputes at DRN has been implemented - its at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/request
[2012-07-29 05:09:21] <Ebe123> DRN should be able to make small binding desisions relating to articles and users but keep the controversial to ArbCom
[2012-07-29 05:09:28] <fluffernutter> The only way to make DR function, in the sense of "take the burden off arbcom and ANI", is to make somelevel where it is binding
[2012-07-29 05:09:34] <Steven_Zhang> A bot has also been coded to help manage the influx of cases to DRN
[2012-07-29 05:09:41] <Ebe123> Like protecting should be for DRN
[2012-07-29 05:09:46] <Steven_Zhang> and a volunteer guide has been written (almost finished)
[2012-07-29 05:09:56] <Steven_Zhang> Additionally
[2012-07-29 05:09:56] <Ebe123> Steven_Zhang: How is the js script supposed to look like when used? The Wikilove style? Is there a screenshot?
[2012-07-29 05:10:07] <Steven_Zhang> Ebe123: it's a form.
[2012-07-29 05:10:07] <fluffernutter> Ocaasi: i use "binding" to basically mean "if DR comes to conclusion X, and you continue editing against decision X, you're in trouble"
[2012-07-29 05:10:13] <Steven_Zhang> to fill out.
[2012-07-29 05:10:17] <Ebe123> How is it supposed to look like
[2012-07-29 05:10:21] <TransporterMan> arbcom and ANI are conduct, DR is content
[2012-07-29 05:10:26] <sikob> Steven_Zhang: and the plan is to let all those 3 things run for all of august, and measure the outcomes, right?
[2012-07-29 05:10:30] <Steven_Zhang> you don't have js enabled?
[2012-07-29 05:10:32] <Ocaasi> fluffernutter: would the conclusion have to be determined by an admin or could any editor close it?
[2012-07-29 05:10:32] <Steven_Zhang> Indeed.
[2012-07-29 05:10:32] <TransporterMan> fluff: that's right
[2012-07-29 05:10:34] <Ebe123> DR could decide to protect
[2012-07-29 05:10:42] <Ebe123> an such
[2012-07-29 05:10:46] <Steven_Zhang> I've measured the effectiveness of DRN as well as other forums in May
[2012-07-29 05:10:52] <Steven_Zhang> so if it improves with these changes in August
[2012-07-29 05:10:55] <Ebe123> we such
[2012-07-29 05:11:03] <Steven_Zhang> I know my changes have had a positive impact.
[2012-07-29 05:11:16] <Ebe123> we suck in DR
[2012-07-29 05:11:25] <Steven_Zhang> Also, there has been talk at the Mediation Committee of lowering the case acceptance criteria
[2012-07-29 05:11:37] <Ebe123> To what?
[2012-07-29 05:11:40] <Steven_Zhang> so if DRN can't resolve a dispute after 5 days, it gets booted up to MedCom.
[2012-07-29 05:11:54] <Steven_Zhang> Ebe123: at present they have a universal agreement criteria for acceptance.
[2012-07-29 05:11:55] <Ocaasi> yes, can you comment on whether MedCom is going the way of the Content noticeboard?  Would it make sense to roll MedCom into DRN in some way?
[2012-07-29 05:12:02] <Steven_Zhang> No.
[2012-07-29 05:12:12] <Steven_Zhang> MedCom is too old to be removed.
[2012-07-29 05:12:17] <Demiurge1000> Steven_Zhang: Speaking as someone who's successfully resolved some cases at DRN, 5 days is a bit sharp
[2012-07-29 05:12:25] <Ocaasi> maybe 14 days
[2012-07-29 05:12:28] <fluffernutter> Steven_Zhang: i think that's a good step. One person shouldn't be able to stonewall DR
[2012-07-29 05:12:30] <Ebe123> Nothing is too old to be removed
[2012-07-29 05:12:30] <Demiurge1000> 14 would be fine
[2012-07-29 05:12:40] <Steven_Zhang> And DRN isn't really designed to resolve disputes that continue for a long time
[2012-07-29 05:12:40] <Ocaasi> that's what she said
[2012-07-29 05:12:45] <Demiurge1000> if it's 14 days old then it's either got somewhere already, or not going tod
[2012-07-29 05:14:33] <Ocaasi> I really like the idea of DRN being the consensus first step in dispute resolution, with MedCom being tear 2
[2012-07-29 05:14:37] <Steve_Zhang> So, Demiurge1000, problem with more than 5 days
[2012-07-29 05:14:37] <Ocaasi> tier
[2012-07-29 05:14:40] <iDangerMouse> Sorry guys I have a flight so I have to go
[2012-07-29 05:14:46] <Steve_Zhang> DRN gets say, 5 threads a day
[2012-07-29 05:14:48] <Demiurge1000> iDangerMouse: Do you mean a fight?
[2012-07-29 05:14:49] <Ebe123> No hard-limit
[2012-07-29 05:14:51] <Steve_Zhang> 5 x 14
[2012-07-29 05:14:53] <Ebe123> please
[2012-07-29 05:14:54] <Steve_Zhang> is huge
[2012-07-29 05:15:03] <Ocaasi> wow something's going nuts
[2012-07-29 05:15:05] <Steve_Zhang> 5 days is a goal for resolution.
[2012-07-29 05:15:05] <iDangerMouse> Demiurge1000: FLIGHT , Islamabad
[2012-07-29 05:15:06] <Demiurge1000> Steve_Zhang: 7 or 9 then :)
[2012-07-29 05:15:13] <Demiurge1000> iDangerMouse: FIGHT ISLAMABAD!
[2012-07-29 05:15:14] <iDangerMouse> 3 hrs away
[2012-07-29 05:15:22] * iDangerMouse stabs Demiurge1000 
[2012-07-29 05:15:22] <Steve_Zhang> we plan to assess after 4 or 5 days, have closed by 7.
[2012-07-29 05:15:26] <iDangerMouse> Steve_Zhang: Good luck lemme know.
[2012-07-29 05:15:26] <Steve_Zhang> at the most.
[2012-07-29 05:15:30] <TBloemink> oh
[2012-07-29 05:15:31] <TBloemink> wait
[2012-07-29 05:15:34] <Thehelpfulone> how bad is the problem with trolls in this channel?
[2012-07-29 05:15:35] <Steve_Zhang> DRN resolved disputes in 8.6 days in May
[2012-07-29 05:15:36] <Demiurge1000> iDangerMouse: 3 hours is not enough. 7 days is ok.
[2012-07-29 05:15:39] <Thehelpfulone> there's something about "office hours being open to all" and "mode +r" that don't quite gel...
[2012-07-29 05:15:44] <RogueMadman> Trololololo.
[2012-07-29 05:15:45] <Steve_Zhang> its really bad Thehelpfulone 
[2012-07-29 05:15:47] <Ebe123> Bad troll problem
[2012-07-29 05:15:51] <Demiurge1000> Steve_Zhang: yeah, sounds about right
[2012-07-29 05:15:56] <Thehelpfulone> it's not usually that bad
[2012-07-29 05:16:01] <Thehelpfulone> maybe you're not scary enough ;)
[2012-07-29 05:16:06] <TBloemink> Thehelpfulone, we had both derp and meepsheep
[2012-07-29 05:16:09] <Steve_Zhang> So, from this, we need a few things.
[2012-07-29 05:16:13] <TBloemink> That might indicate how bad it is
[2012-07-29 05:16:17] <Steve_Zhang> More volunteers
[2012-07-29 05:16:20] <iDangerMouse> Demiurge1000: DA = Dumb Ass 3 hrs is the flight duration and going for a week.
[2012-07-29 05:16:24] <Steve_Zhang> Did I say WE NEED MORE VOLUNTEERS?
[2012-07-29 05:16:37] <Steve_Zhang> really...some of the people here are DRN volunteers
[2012-07-29 05:16:44] <Steve_Zhang> and we have a real risk of being burnt out.
[2012-07-29 05:16:52] <Steve_Zhang> the problem is
[2012-07-29 05:16:58] <Steve_Zhang> DR isnt as hard as people think it is.
[2012-07-29 05:17:06] <RogueMadman> As in every area of Wikipedia.
[2012-07-29 05:17:11] <Steve_Zhang> It's all about re-establishing effective communication
[2012-07-29 05:17:12] <RogueMadman> And also as in every area of Wikipedia. xD
[2012-07-29 05:17:15] <fluffernutter> Steve_Zhang: speaking from a selfish, not-voluterring-at-least-yet perspective...I don't think I can muster the energy to volunteer unless there's at least a chance DR can actually resolve issues *and* make them stick. The few cases I've watched so far have not really had those qualities
[2012-07-29 05:17:28] <Steve_Zhang> fluffernutter: the thing is
[2012-07-29 05:17:31] <Ebe123> I was a volunteer, but forgot about it
[2012-07-29 05:17:35] <Steve_Zhang> if a dispute is resolved successfully
[2012-07-29 05:17:41] <Steve_Zhang> its defacto binding
[2012-07-29 05:17:50] <Ebe123> de facto
[2012-07-29 05:17:51] <Steve_Zhang> if 7 people agree and then one person edits contrary to it
[2012-07-29 05:17:55] <Isarra> De facto how?
[2012-07-29 05:17:56] <Steve_Zhang> thats a conduct issue
[2012-07-29 05:18:04] <Isarra> What can you actually do?
[2012-07-29 05:18:12] <fluffernutter> nothing :/
[2012-07-29 05:18:21] <Steve_Zhang> Well, yes and no.
[2012-07-29 05:18:24] <Ebe123> fluffernutter said it
[2012-07-29 05:18:28] <Ebe123> no
[2012-07-29 05:18:36] <Ebe123> thing'
[2012-07-29 05:18:36] <Ocaasi> I think you might get more buy-in from volunteers if you appointed 'clerks' who could officially close cases and make the final determination.  it would be considered binding but could always be appealed to medcom
[2012-07-29 05:18:39] <Steve_Zhang> One person editing contrary to a consensus
[2012-07-29 05:18:49] <Steve_Zhang> is a conduct issue
[2012-07-29 05:18:56] <Ebe123> Agree with Ocaasi
[2012-07-29 05:19:13] <Steve_Zhang> Ocaasi: Yeah, its just that the community has always rejected the idea of binding conduct DR
[2012-07-29 05:19:16] <Isarra> Where do conduct issues go?
[2012-07-29 05:19:24] <Steve_Zhang> It was discussed a lot in the survey though
[2012-07-29 05:19:33] <Isarra> Perhaps having clerks would help them accept the idea?
[2012-07-29 05:19:37] <TransporterMan> that a subject for discussion
[2012-07-29 05:19:43] <TransporterMan> conduct, that is
[2012-07-29 05:19:46] <Steve_Zhang> Survey : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DRSURVEY
[2012-07-29 05:20:21] <Ocaasi> Right but the community acknowledges we have a huge DR problem.  If DRN is the go-to first DR step and its clerks can make binding decisions, save for MedCom appeal--well I think that's something you should hold an RfC on at least
[2012-07-29 05:20:21] <Steve_Zhang> it may
[2012-07-29 05:20:33] <fluffernutter> Steve_Zhang I think you're operating on the assumption that a DRN report WILL be ableto reach a consensus, instead of just consist of two people bitching at each other. Which...DOES it, really?
[2012-07-29 05:20:35] <Steve_Zhang> Who here supports the idea?
[2012-07-29 05:20:46] <Steve_Zhang> fluffernutter: DRN works quite well when managed
[2012-07-29 05:20:47] <fluffernutter> i like Ocaasi's idea as a start
[2012-07-29 05:20:54] <Ocaasi> fluffernutter: i've seen DRN be much more effective than say WQA
[2012-07-29 05:20:57] <Steve_Zhang> the problem has been lack of structure
[2012-07-29 05:21:01] <Steve_Zhang> ON THAT TOPIC
[2012-07-29 05:21:05] <Steve_Zhang> I want to close WQA >_>
[2012-07-29 05:21:11] <TransporterMan> DRN actually works pretty well as it is, Steve's ideas will make it better
[2012-07-29 05:21:14] <Steve_Zhang> or at least discuss an alternative.
[2012-07-29 05:21:15] <Isarra> Does WQA acheive anything?
[2012-07-29 05:21:21] <Steve_Zhang> survey says no
[2012-07-29 05:21:29] <Steve_Zhang> 8% thought it was effective.
[2012-07-29 05:21:33] <fluffernutter> heh
[2012-07-29 05:21:39] <Isarra> Then you might be onto something. >.<
[2012-07-29 05:21:42] <Steve_Zhang> but, we have no other process to discuss conduct issues.
[2012-07-29 05:21:50] <Steve_Zhang> that dont need intervention
[2012-07-29 05:21:54] <Isarra> Sorry, I just sort of wandered in just now and don't know anything about anything.
[2012-07-29 05:21:54] <Steve_Zhang> But do we need one?
[2012-07-29 05:22:05] <Steve_Zhang> Isarra: its ok :)
[2012-07-29 05:22:16] <Isarra> What about the process of go to other person's talkpage and talk it out?
[2012-07-29 05:22:24] <Demiurge1000> Steve_Zhang: So instead of WQA for conduct issues, we encourage people to go straight to ANI if discussing on user talk pages doesn't work? Hrrrrmmm
[2012-07-29 05:22:26] <Isarra> If no intervention is required, isn't that enough?
[2012-07-29 05:22:31] <Steve_Zhang> Demiurge1000: yeah
[2012-07-29 05:22:34] <Steve_Zhang> or RFCU
[2012-07-29 05:22:39] <Ocaasi> going to people's talk pages doesn't involve third parties, which is a key to DR Isarra
[2012-07-29 05:22:39] <Steve_Zhang> or just AN
[2012-07-29 05:22:59] <TransporterMan> That just turns AN into WQ
[2012-07-29 05:23:00] <Steve_Zhang> Or a more structured WQA, idk.
[2012-07-29 05:23:03] <TransporterMan> A
[2012-07-29 05:23:08] <Isarra> Huh.
[2012-07-29 05:23:23] <Ocaasi> WQA should just be routed to DRN maybe
[2012-07-29 05:23:33] <Ebe123> Yeah
[2012-07-29 05:23:45] <Steve_Zhang> Not sure....DRN volunteers are reluctant to the idea.
[2012-07-29 05:23:57] <TransporterMan> Yes, me in particular
[2012-07-29 05:24:00] <Ebe123> I am a volunteer there, but inactive
[2012-07-29 05:24:12] <Steve_Zhang> Ebe123: then become active, kthnx
[2012-07-29 05:24:15] <Steve_Zhang> :)
[2012-07-29 05:24:16] <RogueMadman> RFC is better than AN. Leave AN alone. :p
[2012-07-29 05:24:27] <Steve_Zhang> RogueMadman: any progress on that bot?
[2012-07-29 05:24:38] <Ebe123> I will
[2012-07-29 05:24:47] <Risker> I would suggest that it is time to rethink the RFC/U process
[2012-07-29 05:25:09] <fluffernutter> yes please
[2012-07-29 05:25:20] <Ebe123> Yes
[2012-07-29 05:25:23] <Steve_Zhang> the RFC process itself is kinda ugly
[2012-07-29 05:25:24] <Isarra> Yes.
[2012-07-29 05:25:26] <fluffernutter> it's become a bit of a joke, as far as "Why would I do that? It doesn't fix anything."
[2012-07-29 05:25:35] <Risker> it worked back in the early days when everyone pretty well knew each other
[2012-07-29 05:25:36] <RogueMadman> Steve_Zhang: Not for a while now. Until DOJ stops bugging me every day at work about their urgent issues, I don't anticipate much progress. :x
[2012-07-29 05:25:49] <Steve_Zhang> Risker: you're an arb - what would you suggest
[2012-07-29 05:26:01] <RogueMadman> I don't remember when their upgrade is done, but then will be when most of the work gets done.
[2012-07-29 05:26:17] <Steve_Zhang> ArbCom deals with conduct primarily, and disputes need to be looked at prior to ArbCom
[2012-07-29 05:26:24] <Steve_Zhang> If not RFC/U, what else?
[2012-07-29 05:26:29] <Isarra> I like when people just ignore rfc/us.
[2012-07-29 05:26:34] <Isarra> A better rfc/u!
[2012-07-29 05:26:38] <Isarra> ...somehow.
[2012-07-29 05:26:41] <Isarra> Maybe.
[2012-07-29 05:26:43] <Risker> Steve_Zhang, it has become so bad that I would honestly suggest deep-sixing it, and working on building up the DRN
[2012-07-29 05:26:52] <fluffernutter> RFC/U also deals with conduct, theoretically. it's just that it...doesn't, in practice.
[2012-07-29 05:26:53] <Steve_Zhang> For conduct too?
[2012-07-29 05:26:58] <Risker> when was the last time that a RFC/U changed things
[2012-07-29 05:27:08] <Steve_Zhang> We have had a discussion
[2012-07-29 05:27:09] <Ebe123> 2000?
[2012-07-29 05:27:15] <TransporterMan> I'm of the opinion that taking content issues in hand frequently solves conduct issues. We don't let people grind conduct issues at DRN.
[2012-07-29 05:27:15] <Ocaasi> Proposal: WQA routes to DRN, DRN with a 14 day max is binding but can be appealed at MedCom; MedCom is binding but can be appealed after 2 months to ArbCom
[2012-07-29 05:27:35] <Isarra> Same.
[2012-07-29 05:27:46] <fluffernutter> the trouble with RfC/U is also a matter of lack of binding, I think. If someone opens an RfC/U on me, that somehow manages to rach consensus that I'm Hitler...I can just laugh and heil while I continue editing
[2012-07-29 05:28:05] <Steve_Zhang> Pretty much.
[2012-07-29 05:28:05] <TransporterMan> WQA rerouting to DRN is fine, so long as we still have the right to not let them actually talk about it.
[2012-07-29 05:28:11] <Ebe123> Support Ocaasi
[2012-07-29 05:28:15] <Steve_Zhang> I think DRN could use a bit of teeth.
[2012-07-29 05:28:24] <Ocaasi> can't an admin enforce some sanction based on an RfC/U (or even before it), fluffernutter?
[2012-07-29 05:28:29] <Steve_Zhang> not huge chompers
[2012-07-29 05:28:44] <Ebe123> shark teeth?
[2012-07-29 05:28:49] <Risker> well, that's one issue, fluffernutter. The problem is that most RFC/Us are simply continuations of interpersonal disputes that simply have the same few people having the same argument in a different place
[2012-07-29 05:28:54] <fluffernutter> Ocaasi, i've never seen that happen, certainlynotwithout being oveturned against the admin who tries to enforce it
[2012-07-29 05:29:02] <fluffernutter> Risker, yep, that too.
[2012-07-29 05:29:37] <fluffernutter> the certification process is supposed to head that off, but there's nearlyalways enough friends on one side to take care of that
[2012-07-29 05:29:58] <Risker> the certification process is severely flawed, and is pretty well never examined
[2012-07-29 05:30:05] <Ocaasi> Risker, would you be comfortable with ArbCom case-bringers to be required to have tried DRN (14 days) and MedCom (2 months) before bringing said case?
[2012-07-29 05:30:16] <RogueMadman> That's interesting. I'm getting no invites.
[2012-07-29 05:30:23] <RogueMadman> Unless I just can't see them on webchat.
[2012-07-29 05:30:31] <fluffernutter> good lord that would be horrible if it's strictly enforced, Steve_Zhang
[2012-07-29 05:30:39] <Steve_Zhang> Not strictly enforced
[2012-07-29 05:30:41] <Steve_Zhang> But eg
[2012-07-29 05:30:46] <Steve_Zhang> I closed a discussion yesterday
[2012-07-29 05:30:57] <Steve_Zhang> as the user was the only person with X viewpoint
[2012-07-29 05:30:59] <fluffernutter> halfof what arbcom takes are disputes so dramatic and so disruptive that making a two-month waiting period would do Bad Things
[2012-07-29 05:31:05] <Steve_Zhang> out of 7 participants and 3 volunteers
[2012-07-29 05:31:07] <Risker> Ocaasi, I think that there has to be flexibility.  There are several times I can think of where if cases had been to arbcom sooner, the resolution would have been more prompt
[2012-07-29 05:31:09] <Steve_Zhang> they started edit warring
[2012-07-29 05:31:11] <Steve_Zhang> etc
[2012-07-29 05:31:41] <Ocaasi> Risker: maybe ArbCom should have power to 'send' a case to a lower court, so to speak, either DRN or MedCOM
[2012-07-29 05:31:52] <Steve_Zhang> One other thing has been discussed
[2012-07-29 05:31:54] <Ebe123> They can
[2012-07-29 05:32:01] <Steve_Zhang> Streamlining all DR into 4 forums.
[2012-07-29 05:32:14] <Risker> Ocaasi, when a case is being rejected, arbitrators almost always make recommendations on where to take the dispute
[2012-07-29 05:32:21] <Ocaasi> ah, good to know
[2012-07-29 05:32:27] <Steve_Zhang> the 4 forums would be
[2012-07-29 05:32:34] <Steve_Zhang> a central noticeboard
[2012-07-29 05:32:40] <Steve_Zhang> one for conduct, one for content
[2012-07-29 05:32:42] <Ebe123> MedCom, ArbCom, DRN and what?
[2012-07-29 05:32:44] <Steve_Zhang> then MedCom, and ArbCom
[2012-07-29 05:32:56] <Steve_Zhang> and maybe a binding process for resolving content 
[2012-07-29 05:33:04] <Risker> Does MedCom have a reasonable success rate?
[2012-07-29 05:33:06] <Ebe123> DRN?
[2012-07-29 05:33:07] <Steve_Zhang> like a community RFC similar to the abortion article titles
[2012-07-29 05:33:13] <Steve_Zhang> Risker: Not at present
[2012-07-29 05:33:23] <TransporterMan> medcom doesn't have a rate at anything right now
[2012-07-29 05:33:27] <Steve_Zhang> In May it was 0%, last successful case in September 2011
[2012-07-29 05:33:34] <TransporterMan> they almost never take a case
[2012-07-29 05:33:39] <Steve_Zhang> But that's being worked on - I dont think its their fault
[2012-07-29 05:33:40] <Ocaasi> jeez, september??
[2012-07-29 05:33:48] <fluffernutter> how do we account for the fact that conduct and content issues often bleed into each other, though? Like, someone disagrees with me over an edit I made. And then suddenly they're calling me names and hounding me, to try to get the content to go their way. Where does that go?
[2012-07-29 05:33:56] <Risker> they don't take cases because everyone has to agree to participate, correct?
[2012-07-29 05:34:02] <Steve_Zhang> by the time a case gets to MedCom it's so bad that its unresolvable
[2012-07-29 05:34:06] <Steve_Zhang> Risker: essentially
[2012-07-29 05:34:12] <Steve_Zhang> see this discussion
[2012-07-29 05:34:17] <Ocaasi> i don't really support separating conduct form content.
[2012-07-29 05:34:25] <Steve_Zhang> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Committee#Time_to_shutter_formal_mediation.3F
[2012-07-29 05:34:31] <TransporterMan> the way we deal with it at DRN is to make them stop and stay on point on the content
[2012-07-29 05:34:41] <Isarra> Why can't you just ban people who make disruption? >.>
[2012-07-29 05:34:48] <Risker> so...in other words, it only takes one person to refuse to participate in mediation to prevent mediation from occurring.
[2012-07-29 05:34:58] <Ebe123> Correct
[2012-07-29 05:35:10] <Isarra> Same problem in most things, unfortunately.
[2012-07-29 05:35:19] <Ocaasi> Can't it be as simple as if a person doesn't participate, their view is not considered?
[2012-07-29 05:35:24] <Ebe123> Isarra, we can ban for disruption, but on AN/i
[2012-07-29 05:35:28] <Ocaasi> and therefore not a part of the binding determination?
[2012-07-29 05:35:37] <Ebe123> That would not work
[2012-07-29 05:35:38] <AzaToth> aint mediation fully optional?
[2012-07-29 05:35:40] <Steve_Zhang> It is
[2012-07-29 05:35:42] <Isarra> Ebe123: Only sometimes, from what I've seen. *shifty eyes*
[2012-07-29 05:35:44] <Ebe123> It is
[2012-07-29 05:35:46] <Steve_Zhang> Risker: correct.
[2012-07-29 05:36:05] <Steve_Zhang> Thats the problem at present
[2012-07-29 05:36:07] <Ebe123> Or arbcom
[2012-07-29 05:36:12] <Steve_Zhang> it only takes one person to block a mediation.
[2012-07-29 05:36:17] <Isarra> If their view is not considered, then how could the outcome possibly affect them?
[2012-07-29 05:36:19] <Steve_Zhang> idk why this wasnt thought of before.
[2012-07-29 05:36:27] <Steve_Zhang> The problem is
[2012-07-29 05:36:35] <Steve_Zhang> if one person doesnt participate
[2012-07-29 05:36:43] <Steve_Zhang> in theory, mediation gets accepted
[2012-07-29 05:36:56] <Steve_Zhang> The others could work on a proposal, resolve it and everything
[2012-07-29 05:37:01] <fluffernutter> well, technically "mediation" requires participation and compromise from both sides. So in theory, agreement fromboth sides is necessary. In practice, though...
[2012-07-29 05:37:01] <Ebe123> forced mediation will never work
[2012-07-29 05:37:02] <Steve_Zhang> and then that one user says "I dont agree"
[2012-07-29 05:37:17] <Steve_Zhang> And then, theres nothing that can be done.
[2012-07-29 05:37:24] <Steve_Zhang> An idea that was brought up
[2012-07-29 05:37:32] <Steve_Zhang> if parties to a mediation request refuse
[2012-07-29 05:37:35] <Isarra> Since when do people even agree mediation is necessary?
[2012-07-29 05:37:36] <Steve_Zhang> and the case is accepted
[2012-07-29 05:37:43] <Steve_Zhang> they are topic banned from the area
[2012-07-29 05:37:45] <Steve_Zhang> or something
[2012-07-29 05:37:45] <Steve_Zhang> idk
[2012-07-29 05:37:52] <Ebe123> Why not?
[2012-07-29 05:38:00] <Ocaasi> Isarra: binding DRN resolution would have to have the power to sanction editors who were involved but did not comment
[2012-07-29 05:38:04] <Steve_Zhang> it'd need checks and balances
[2012-07-29 05:38:26] <Isarra> Ocaasi: Scary.
[2012-07-29 05:38:28] <Ocaasi> Risker, does ArbCom want a defined lower court?
[2012-07-29 05:38:31] <Risker> well...the key is that mediation was initially designed to resolve disputes between 2-3 editors, and the requests now usually name a dozen or so
[2012-07-29 05:38:37] <Steve_Zhang> yea
[2012-07-29 05:38:38] <AzaToth> Steve_Zhang: that would open up misusing medcom
[2012-07-29 05:38:41] <Ocaasi> Isarra: admins can sanction users in any case, whether they comment or not?
[2012-07-29 05:38:48] <Steve_Zhang> AzaToth: it's not misused already?
[2012-07-29 05:38:58] <Isarra> But then they get jumped... and what if the users are admins too?
[2012-07-29 05:38:59] <Risker> Ocaasi, heaven only knows.  We still debate internally whether we're doing it right.
[2012-07-29 05:39:23] <Isarra> Ghah, sorry for being so cynical. >><
[2012-07-29 05:39:25] <Isarra> >.<
[2012-07-29 05:39:44] <Ocaasi> admins can't use their tools in disputes where they're involved anyway
[2012-07-29 05:39:48] <AzaToth> Steve_Zhang: if I don't like your edits, I could bring you to medcom with totally stupid reasons, and if you refuses to participate you'll get topicbanned from the article
[2012-07-29 05:39:59] <Steve_Zhang> In theory, yes.
[2012-07-29 05:40:07] <Ocaasi> AzaToth: why would he be banned unless his conduct warranted it already?
[2012-07-29 05:40:09] <Steve_Zhang> In practice, MedCom would review such a case.
[2012-07-29 05:40:15] <Ebe123> But then Steve appeals to AN/I
[2012-07-29 05:40:17] <Isarra> <3
[2012-07-29 05:40:20] <Ebe123> not /I
[2012-07-29 05:40:26] <Steve_Zhang> it wouldnt be automatic.
[2012-07-29 05:40:38] <Steve_Zhang> I imagine the committee as a whole would come to an agreement on it.
[2012-07-29 05:40:59] <Isarra> Couldn't the case just be refused?
[2012-07-29 05:41:00] <Steve_Zhang> But, at present only ArbCom can issue topic bans, or admins under discretionary sanctions
[2012-07-29 05:41:28] <Ebe123> We should transfer that privilege
[2012-07-29 05:41:33] <Ocaasi> Steve_Zhang: what if DRN/MedCom could issue a *provisional* topic ban, until the case was appealed upwards
[2012-07-29 05:41:34] <Steve_Zhang> To MedCom as well
[2012-07-29 05:41:34] <fluffernutter> or ANI, sort of
[2012-07-29 05:41:36] <AzaToth> wtf
[2012-07-29 05:41:38] <Steve_Zhang> hmm
[2012-07-29 05:41:49] <Steve_Zhang> Ocaasi: but then DRN needs requirements of volunteers.
[2012-07-29 05:41:56] <Steve_Zhang> and we can't afford to be picky.
[2012-07-29 05:41:57] <AzaToth> just got invite-spammed
[2012-07-29 05:42:00] <Ocaasi> what do you mean by requirements
[2012-07-29 05:42:13] <Steve_Zhang> well, we dont want the user with 5 edits issuing topic bans
[2012-07-29 05:42:15] <Wiki13> ah, AzaToth, that´s derp i guess
[2012-07-29 05:42:20] <AzaToth> I think so
[2012-07-29 05:42:31] <Ocaasi> Steve_Zhang: you could set the bar high by only allowing admins to close DRN/MedCom issues
[2012-07-29 05:42:32] <Wiki13> Once I got that also
[2012-07-29 05:42:41] <Steve_Zhang> Ocaasi: that would eliminate me.
[2012-07-29 05:42:42] <Steve_Zhang> :P
[2012-07-29 05:42:43] <Ocaasi> or approved clerks
[2012-07-29 05:42:43] <TBloemink> AzaToth, contact erry about that
[2012-07-29 05:42:46] <Ocaasi> :)
[2012-07-29 05:42:51] <TBloemink> <3
[2012-07-29 05:42:52] <Ocaasi> hopefully not for long
[2012-07-29 05:42:56] <Steve_Zhang> as I'm never passing rfa :P
[2012-07-29 05:43:01] <Steve_Zhang> but anyways
[2012-07-29 05:43:02] <Ebe123> Never either
[2012-07-29 05:43:08] <Steve_Zhang> Risker: what do you think?
[2012-07-29 05:43:09] <Ocaasi> Ok, so admins AND approved clerks
[2012-07-29 05:43:10] <Wiki13> zomg
[2012-07-29 05:43:13] <Wiki13> also here
[2012-07-29 05:43:26] <Steve_Zhang> How would we get around the "bureaucracy" argument
[2012-07-29 05:43:41] <Steve_Zhang> Because I can see that one coming from here.
[2012-07-29 05:43:45] <Ocaasi> Steve_Zhang: when chaos clearly is not working, try order
[2012-07-29 05:43:47] <Isarra> Point out that disorganised squabble ain't working?
[2012-07-29 05:43:50] <Ebe123> Steve_Zhang: You are not alone, I will never pass RfA
[2012-07-29 05:43:51] <Ocaasi> yup
[2012-07-29 05:44:00] <Isarra> Bureaucracy isn't necessarily a bad thing.
[2012-07-29 05:44:09] <Steve_Zhang> it's worked for DRN in the past.
[2012-07-29 05:44:17] <Steve_Zhang> And we're just adding more onto it, really
[2012-07-29 05:44:19] <BirgitteSB> Bureaucracy isn't inherently evil
[2012-07-29 05:44:20] <Ebe123> Like would you like 5 year olds contacting ISPs?
[2012-07-29 05:44:22] <Steve_Zhang> but its for a reason.
[2012-07-29 05:44:52] <Steve_Zhang> Would we all get behind it?
[2012-07-29 05:45:02] <BirgitteSB> It is good for slowing things down and prevents reactive rather than thoughtful judgements
[2012-07-29 05:45:12] <RogueMadman> Ocaasi: All done.
[2012-07-29 05:45:14] <Steve_Zhang> I think maybe...hm
[2012-07-29 05:45:25] <Steve_Zhang> A DRN discussion being binding?
[2012-07-29 05:45:31] <Ebe123> Yes
[2012-07-29 05:45:39] <Steve_Zhang> until it's discussed at MedCom if necessary
[2012-07-29 05:45:42] <RogueMadman> Now I have a partner persuasively requesting my attention. So I'm off. xD
[2012-07-29 05:45:46] <Steve_Zhang> like, a blackout period
[2012-07-29 05:45:52] <Steve_Zhang> RogueMadman: TMI
[2012-07-29 05:46:03] <Steve_Zhang> In other news
[2012-07-29 05:46:14] <Steve_Zhang> the robot that will monitor DRN has just been completed.
[2012-07-29 05:46:16] <Steve_Zhang> :-)
[2012-07-29 05:46:21] <TBloemink> If people are still having invite-spams, please report it to me
[2012-07-29 05:46:22] <Ebe123> Goos
[2012-07-29 05:46:24] <Steve_Zhang> as of 5 seconds ago
[2012-07-29 05:46:25] <Ebe123> Good
[2012-07-29 05:46:40] <Isarra> Magical.
[2012-07-29 05:47:28] <Steve_Zhang> Does anyone have any questions for me?
[2012-07-29 05:47:36] <Ebe123> No
[2012-07-29 05:47:37] <Steve_Zhang> feedback, comments?
[2012-07-29 05:47:41] <Isarra> Not any relevant ones.
[2012-07-29 05:47:57] <BirgitteSB> Do you have any plans to try and DR started early in disputes?
[2012-07-29 05:47:59] <Ebe123> Lets just get a on-wiki proposal for binding desistions
[2012-07-29 05:48:06] <BirgitteSB> Earlier
[2012-07-29 05:48:22] <Steve_Zhang> BirgitteSB: Yes.
[2012-07-29 05:48:23] <Ebe123> on DRN
[2012-07-29 05:48:32] <BirgitteSB> It seems to me DR works better the earlier
[2012-07-29 05:48:36] <Steve_Zhang> Madman is working on a cluebot style robot
[2012-07-29 05:48:57] <Steve_Zhang> It'd act as an early warning system
[2012-07-29 05:49:11] <Steve_Zhang> disputes that haven't been filed yet but are getting out of control on, say, a talk page
[2012-07-29 05:49:19] <Ebe123> How to get DRN to be used early on?
[2012-07-29 05:49:31] <Steve_Zhang> make it more visible
[2012-07-29 05:49:36] <BirgitteSB> That sounds good
[2012-07-29 05:49:41] <Ebe123> How?
[2012-07-29 05:49:48] <Steve_Zhang> All links to dispute resolution go to the policy page at present
[2012-07-29 05:49:51] <Ebe123> An ad on the main page?
[2012-07-29 05:49:54] <Steve_Zhang> which is just a pile of crap
[2012-07-29 05:49:56] <Steve_Zhang> lol.
[2012-07-29 05:50:00] <Steve_Zhang> Not on the main page.
[2012-07-29 05:50:09] <Steve_Zhang> But ideally
[2012-07-29 05:50:18] <Steve_Zhang> I'd like to rewrite the WP:DR pagr
[2012-07-29 05:50:19] <Wiki13> huh TBloemink?
[2012-07-29 05:50:20] <Steve_Zhang> page
[2012-07-29 05:50:24] <Ebe123> You may
[2012-07-29 05:50:27] <Steve_Zhang> with a brief overview of what DR is.
[2012-07-29 05:50:39] <Steve_Zhang> and a massive "REQUEST DISPUTE RESOLUTION" button
[2012-07-29 05:50:53] <Steve_Zhang> which filters disputes to different forums based on questions that are answered
[2012-07-29 05:50:54] <Ebe123> Go for it
[2012-07-29 05:51:14] <Steve_Zhang> WP:DR has existed for years
[2012-07-29 05:51:26] <Steve_Zhang> I can't just write it from scratch
[2012-07-29 05:51:40] <Isarra> Why not?
[2012-07-29 05:51:40] <BirgitteSB> I suppose I also mean stepping in before anyone reports and say, "you guys seem to be having trouble working this put here are some options"
[2012-07-29 05:51:48] <Ebe123> Make a draft somewhere else and then merge
[2012-07-29 05:51:49] <Ocaasi> Steve_Zhang: I'd love you to draft an RfC proposing some of the ideas like closing WQA, appointing binding powered clerks to DRN/MedCom, etc.  You could even ask if an ArbCom would sit on the clerk-board of DRN and MedCom to recommend cases for 'escalation'
[2012-07-29 05:52:00] <Steve_Zhang> hmm
[2012-07-29 05:52:15] <Steve_Zhang> Ocaasi: maybe the clerks could be appointed by Arbcom?
[2012-07-29 05:52:19] * Steve_Zhang pokes risker
[2012-07-29 05:52:20] <Ocaasi> just a draft, to be discussed and reviewed
[2012-07-29 05:52:42] <Steve_Zhang> i think arbcom should stay separate on the last bit
[2012-07-29 05:52:43] <Ocaasi> gives Arbcom a lot of power, I'd prefer the community do it.  Maybe requirement to be endorsed by 3 admins.
[2012-07-29 05:52:50] <Risker> I dunno about arbcom appointing anymore roles
[2012-07-29 05:53:12] <Steve_Zhang> Hmm...members of MedCom could do it in theory
[2012-07-29 05:53:17] <Steve_Zhang> As long as its not like RFA :P
[2012-07-29 05:53:24] <Ebe123> Just make a community vote
[2012-07-29 05:53:28] <Steve_Zhang> uh, no
[2012-07-29 05:53:30] <Ocaasi> is there any requirement to be in MedCom?
[2012-07-29 05:53:35] <Risker> oh geez. I got yelled at for my RFA votes the other day.
[2012-07-29 05:53:39] <Steve_Zhang> Ocaasi: they need to accept you/
[2012-07-29 05:53:39] <Ebe123> NOT LIKE RFA THOUGH!!!!!!!\
[2012-07-29 05:53:58] <Ocaasi> then they'd be a good group to do it.  but i'd also like a panel of 3 admins to be an alternative path
[2012-07-29 05:54:08] <Steve_Zhang> hmm....
[2012-07-29 05:54:17] <Steve_Zhang> What would being a DRN clerk allow you to do?
[2012-07-29 05:54:33] <Steve_Zhang> TransporterMan: not a "clerk" as we call it now
[2012-07-29 05:54:38] <Steve_Zhang> but a "clerk" :P
[2012-07-29 05:54:46] <Ebe123> Form binding solutions for DRN
[2012-07-29 05:54:48] <BirgitteSB> I know I missed the beginning but I don't see how can get binding powers on editors to fly
[2012-07-29 05:55:15] <Steve_Zhang> I think at DRN
[2012-07-29 05:55:29] <Steve_Zhang> We should make things binding sparsely
[2012-07-29 05:55:30] <Ebe123> I meant at
[2012-07-29 05:55:33] <BirgitteSB> You might be able to get short-term (6month) binding powers on pages/ topic though
[2012-07-29 05:55:50] <Ebe123> and must be uncontroversial
[2012-07-29 05:55:52] <Steve_Zhang> we aim for consensus at first.
[2012-07-29 05:55:59] <Ocaasi> BirgitteSB: the 'binding' powers of DRN would maybe just be temporary, until MedCom or ArbCom weighed in
[2012-07-29 05:56:05] <Steve_Zhang> and is it binding on the parties
[2012-07-29 05:56:08] <Steve_Zhang> or everyone?
[2012-07-29 05:56:12] <Steve_Zhang> what if it needs to be changed.
[2012-07-29 05:56:15] <Ebe123> only the parties
[2012-07-29 05:56:18] <Ocaasi> BirgitteSB: assuming someone appealed to those 'higher courts'
[2012-07-29 05:56:32] <Steve_Zhang> hmm
[2012-07-29 05:56:33] <Ocaasi> Steve_Zhang: then medcom, arbcom, or a panel of 3 admins can overrule it
[2012-07-29 05:56:42] <Ebe123> 3 admins?
[2012-07-29 05:56:45] <Steve_Zhang> Ocaasi: would love to hash out this RFC on collab with you.
[2012-07-29 05:56:46] <Ebe123> Too little
[2012-07-29 05:56:49] <Ocaasi> better than 1?
[2012-07-29 05:56:59] <Ebe123> yes, but...
[2012-07-29 05:57:01] <Ocaasi> Steve_Zhang: start a draft in userspace.  i'm outlining notes as we speak
[2012-07-29 05:57:04] <Steve_Zhang> OKAY
[2012-07-29 05:57:08] <Steve_Zhang> er, ok
[2012-07-29 05:57:09] <BirgitteSB> It would be easier to get the ability to make binding rules for areas of dispute
[2012-07-29 05:57:25] <Steve_Zhang> I think topic bans...hm
[2012-07-29 05:57:30] <BirgitteSB> That would apply to all who edit those areas
[2012-07-29 05:57:37] <Steve_Zhang> topic bans, not even admins can do that at present.
[2012-07-29 05:58:01] <BirgitteSB> More like rules not bans.
[2012-07-29 05:58:10] <Ocaasi> I don't think binding powers should include 'topic-wide discretionary sanctions', only remedies for individual users
[2012-07-29 05:58:12] <Steve_Zhang> what makes us think the community will let non-admin DRN volunteers do stuff like that?
[2012-07-29 05:58:17] <Steve_Zhang> yeah
[2012-07-29 05:58:21] <Steve_Zhang> like time-outs
[2012-07-29 05:58:54] <Ocaasi> what if a clerk recommends an admin-level remedy, like a block.  how would that work?
[2012-07-29 05:58:56] <Ebe123> topic-wide discretionary sanctions should be allowed, but
[2012-07-29 05:59:06] <BirgitteSB> I think temp rules put in place while topics are on fire is sellable
[2012-07-29 05:59:14] <Ocaasi> I think only ArbCom should have topic-wide powers
[2012-07-29 05:59:20] <Ocaasi> BirgitteSB: agreed
[2012-07-29 05:59:28] <Steve_Zhang> Ocaasi: I normally poke an admin about it?
[2012-07-29 05:59:35] <Ocaasi> Steve_Zhang: i guess that works
[2012-07-29 05:59:56] <Demiurge1000> Well, not formally it wouldn't
[2012-07-29 05:59:57] <Steve_Zhang> so, just briefly want to touch on something.
[2012-07-29 06:00:06] <Steve_Zhang> None of these changes
[2012-07-29 06:00:20] <BirgitteSB> If you focus on parties instead of topics you will get all the gamesmanship of arbcom cases without the real authority
[2012-07-29 06:00:23] <Steve_Zhang> Will work without volunteers.
[2012-07-29 06:00:26] <Steve_Zhang> We need more.
[2012-07-29 06:00:39] <Steve_Zhang> Even if you do it a little, or a lot
[2012-07-29 06:00:40] <Ebe123> I will become re-active
[2012-07-29 06:00:47] <Steve_Zhang> We can use more help.
[2012-07-29 06:01:10] <Steve_Zhang> We have a volunteer guide.
[2012-07-29 06:01:17] <Steve_Zhang> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Volunteering
[2012-07-29 06:01:38] <Steve_Zhang> It's being fleshed out to be more substantial - but in short, read thread you are interested in, comment
[2012-07-29 06:01:42] <Steve_Zhang> give suggestions
[2012-07-29 06:01:44] <Steve_Zhang> and learn :()
[2012-07-29 06:01:45] <Steve_Zhang> :)
[2012-07-29 06:01:49] <Ocaasi> Steve_Zhang: if you make a clerk position with binding temporary powers, volunteers will come
[2012-07-29 06:01:54] <Steve_Zhang> lol
[2012-07-29 06:01:59] <Steve_Zhang> power hunger
[2012-07-29 06:02:03] <Ebe123> Like mosquitos on me
[2012-07-29 06:02:21] <Steve_Zhang> i dont want to use it as a carrot for volunteers.
[2012-07-29 06:02:24] <Ocaasi> power hunger makes a lot of things work, provided powers are also limited
[2012-07-29 06:02:34] <Steve_Zhang> Moreso emphasis that DRN can fix things.
[2012-07-29 06:02:42] <Ocaasi> that too ;)
[2012-07-29 06:02:44] <BirgitteSB> Not just power, it disheartening to never be able to see an effect of your effort
[2012-07-29 06:03:03] <Steve_Zhang> so, say, binding for three months?
[2012-07-29 06:03:09] <Ebe123> Yes
[2012-07-29 06:03:10] <Steve_Zhang> just to cool off discussion?
[2012-07-29 06:03:16] <Ebe123> but may be changed
[2012-07-29 06:03:25] <Steve_Zhang> argh
[2012-07-29 06:03:27] <Ebe123> I do not like hard-limits
[2012-07-29 06:03:31] <Ocaasi> or until Medcom or Arbcom rules on it, or 3 admins maybe overrule it
[2012-07-29 06:03:35] <Steve_Zhang> people are trying to join that arent registered.
[2012-07-29 06:03:38] <Steve_Zhang> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Szhang_(WMF)&curid=35847975&diff=504640437&oldid=504638272
[2012-07-29 06:04:16] <Ebe123> A AN disussion
[2012-07-29 06:04:24] <Steve_Zhang> Maybe it needs consenus of a few "clerks"
[2012-07-29 06:04:25] <Ebe123> for overruling
[2012-07-29 06:04:37] <BirgitteSB> I think you have to commit to clerking the talk pages if you exercise this
[2012-07-29 06:04:50] <Steve_Zhang> it'd be too hard.
[2012-07-29 06:04:59] <Steve_Zhang> We can just do it like current topic bans
[2012-07-29 06:05:07] <Steve_Zhang> violations are reported.
[2012-07-29 06:05:14] <Steve_Zhang> Reported where?) (
[2012-07-29 06:05:18] <Ebe123> AN/I
[2012-07-29 06:05:26] <Ebe123> ArbCom?
[2012-07-29 06:05:44] <BirgitteSB> Its doesn't work very well when the other side is making the reports
[2012-07-29 06:05:47] <Ocaasi> any of hte above?
[2012-07-29 06:06:10] <Steve_Zhang> ANI maybe
[2012-07-29 06:06:20] <Ocaasi> ANI is a great place to do it
[2012-07-29 06:06:21] <Steve_Zhang> with MedCom also able to overturn if a case is accepted
[2012-07-29 06:06:25] <Steve_Zhang> How about also.
[2012-07-29 06:06:32] <Ocaasi> I like also
[2012-07-29 06:06:35] <BirgitteSB> If the clerk follows the talk page and take responsibily for reporting offenders it would cool things down
[2012-07-29 06:06:52] <Steve_Zhang> BirgitteSB: volunteers are spread too thin as it is.
[2012-07-29 06:06:58] <Steve_Zhang> Unworkable I think.
[2012-07-29 06:07:08] <Steve_Zhang> There are 24 listed volunteers on DRN
[2012-07-29 06:07:14] <Steve_Zhang> maybe 8 at most are active.
[2012-07-29 06:07:26] <BirgitteSB> So you can't take on every dispute
[2012-07-29 06:07:26] <Ocaasi> Steve_Zhang: just wait until they have binding powers.  you'll have to beat them away
[2012-07-29 06:07:31] <Steve_Zhang> lol.
[2012-07-29 06:07:44] <BirgitteSB> Nothing will work if you try to fix everything
[2012-07-29 06:07:46] <Steve_Zhang> Ocaasi: I am pretty free after this - lets write up something.
[2012-07-29 06:07:52] <Ocaasi> Steve_Zhang: ok, deal
[2012-07-29 06:07:56] <Steve_Zhang> BirgitteSB: we take on disputes at DRN
[2012-07-29 06:07:57] <Ocaasi> my userspace or yours?
[2012-07-29 06:07:58] <BirgitteSB> You have to be selective
[2012-07-29 06:08:00] <Steve_Zhang> yours.
[2012-07-29 06:08:03] <Steve_Zhang> about 5 a day.
[2012-07-29 06:08:05] <Ocaasi> ok
[2012-07-29 06:08:15] <Steve_Zhang> we probably want some sort of criteria for clerks
[2012-07-29 06:08:22] <Ebe123> Agree
[2012-07-29 06:08:26] <Steve_Zhang> anyone can volunteer at DRN
[2012-07-29 06:08:28] <Steve_Zhang> Yes, anyone
[2012-07-29 06:08:36] <BirgitteSB> I suppose I am saying you don't activate these new powers for every case
[2012-07-29 06:08:41] <Steve_Zhang> Right.
[2012-07-29 06:08:45] <Isarra> What do people do there?
[2012-07-29 06:08:49] <Steve_Zhang> at DRN?
[2012-07-29 06:08:56] <Isarra> Yeah.
[2012-07-29 06:09:22] <Steve_Zhang> people req assistance with a dispute (outside input), volunteers give their 2c on the situation
[2012-07-29 06:09:26] <Steve_Zhang> and ideas for resolving it
[2012-07-29 06:09:31] <Steve_Zhang> it's not as hard as it seems :-)
[2012-07-29 06:09:34] <Isarra> Oh gods.
[2012-07-29 06:09:39] <BirgitteSB> Whatever direction you take: Be selective Avoid lost causes Remember you're
[2012-07-29 06:09:43] <Isarra> I mean...
[2012-07-29 06:09:46] * Isarra scuttles off.
[2012-07-29 06:09:54] <BirgitteSB> Building a case for the process itself
[2012-07-29 06:10:12] <Steve_Zhang> no really, you read the short discussion, rehash it back to them and give suggestions :)
[2012-07-29 06:10:19] <BirgitteSB> If you do that you will get more volunteers to expand it
[2012-07-29 06:10:23] <Steve_Zhang> Yeah
[2012-07-29 06:10:32] <Steve_Zhang> That's what I plan on doing
[2012-07-29 06:10:56] <Steve_Zhang> Ocaasi: we can get an RFC written, proposed to community and approved in 3 days, yeh? :P
[2012-07-29 06:11:11] <Ocaasi> possible, but not recommended.  why 3 days?
[2012-07-29 06:11:24] <Steve_Zhang> lol, kidding - but the data analysis starts Aug 1.
[2012-07-29 06:11:26] <Risker> Concur with Ocaasi.  Take your time
[2012-07-29 06:11:32] <Steve_Zhang> I guess we could do it in September?
[2012-07-29 06:11:41] <Steve_Zhang> DRN 3.0
[2012-07-29 06:11:48] <Steve_Zhang> August 1 is trial of DRN 2.0
[2012-07-29 06:11:49] <Steve_Zhang> :-)
[2012-07-29 06:11:50] <Ebe123> what was 2.0?
[2012-07-29 06:11:57] <Ocaasi> best to draft it, then float it for suggestions, THEN have an RfC when it has a better chance of working
[2012-07-29 06:12:07] <Steve_Zhang> 2.0 is the new DRN
[2012-07-29 06:12:29] <Steve_Zhang> with bot keeping track of stuff
[2012-07-29 06:12:37] <Steve_Zhang> The good thing about DRN
[2012-07-29 06:12:43] <Steve_Zhang> we change easily
[2012-07-29 06:12:52] <Steve_Zhang> and are not afraid of it.
[2012-07-29 06:13:08] <Steve_Zhang> Wikipedia is an ever changing climate
[2012-07-29 06:13:13] <BirgitteSB> That will probably change :)
[2012-07-29 06:13:18] <Steve_Zhang> we need to change with it :)
[2012-07-29 06:13:44] <Steve_Zhang> if we partner with MedCom, then DR will be awesome :D
[2012-07-29 06:13:48] <Steve_Zhang> So volunteer today!
[2012-07-29 06:13:49] <Steve_Zhang> heh
[2012-07-29 06:13:59] <Steve_Zhang> Ocaasi: what do you think about conscripted DR work? :P
[2012-07-29 06:14:05] <BirgitteSB>  :)
[2012-07-29 06:14:21] <Ocaasi> Steve_Zhang: like a draft?
[2012-07-29 06:14:31] <Steve_Zhang> yeh
[2012-07-29 06:14:43] <Ocaasi> you could require a 2 month stint as a clerk before pursuing RFA :)
[2012-07-29 06:14:51] <Steve_Zhang> heh
[2012-07-29 06:14:58] <Steve_Zhang> just as a volunteer
[2012-07-29 06:15:09] <Steve_Zhang> at least some evidence of DR
[2012-07-29 06:15:14] <Ocaasi> won't happen but being a DRN clerk would be great prep for Adminship
[2012-07-29 06:15:33] <Steve_Zhang> yeah.
[2012-07-29 06:15:33] <Ocaasi> It's not wise to 'require' any particular experience for Adminship.  We have admins with all different focuses.
[2012-07-29 06:15:48] <Ocaasi> anyone who wants to chime in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ocaasi/DR
[2012-07-29 06:15:50] <Steve_Zhang> also, while we're here.
[2012-07-29 06:16:01] <Steve_Zhang> Ocaasi has proposed a fellowship as well
[2012-07-29 06:16:04] <BirgitteSB> I think you would be surprised if you made simple personal appeals whenever you noticed a good candidate
[2012-07-29 06:16:07] <Ocaasi> ah, the plug!
[2012-07-29 06:16:13] <Steve_Zhang> take a look at his proposals at some point :-)
[2012-07-29 06:16:15] <Ocaasi>  thanks steven
[2012-07-29 06:16:20] <Ocaasi> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Fellowships/Project_Ideas/The_Wikipedia_Library
[2012-07-29 06:16:26] <Ocaasi> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Fellowships/Project_Ideas/The_Wikipedia_Adventure
[2012-07-29 06:16:31] <Steve_Zhang> (make sure you oppose) :P
[2012-07-29 06:16:36] * Ocaasi ends shameless self-promotion
[2012-07-29 06:16:41] <BirgitteSB> Like, Saw your comment on X and I think you could really be useful atDR
[2012-07-29 06:16:55] <Steve_Zhang> No, but really, all the fellowship proposals would appreciate your input
[2012-07-29 06:17:03] <BirgitteSB> Without having to conscript
[2012-07-29 06:17:07] <Steve_Zhang> BirgitteSB: yeah thats an idea.
[2012-07-29 06:17:12] <Steve_Zhang> Like, an invite system
[2012-07-29 06:17:14] <Ocaasi> no harm in recommending a promising user
[2012-07-29 06:17:21] <Ocaasi> but not required
[2012-07-29 06:17:40] <BirgitteSB> But I think you have make sure they know it isn't random to work
[2012-07-29 06:18:06] <BirgitteSB> No not required
[2012-07-29 06:18:45] <Ocaasi> ok, i'm going to smoke.  steven, et al. i'll be at my userspace subpage in 10 minutes.  thanks for a great discussion !
[2012-07-29 06:18:52] <Steve_Zhang> awesome
[2012-07-29 06:18:57] <BirgitteSB> Thinking more about just ways to get more volunteer in general
[2012-07-29 06:19:10] <Steve_Zhang> Make it easier to volunteer :-)
[2012-07-29 06:19:26] <Steve_Zhang> OK, I think that's the lot. :-)
[2012-07-29 06:19:44] <Steve_Zhang> I'm always hanging around in #wikipedia-en as Steven_Zhang if anyone wants to follow up with me
[2012-07-29 06:19:53] <Steve_Zhang> or my talk page on-wiki
[2012-07-29 06:20:04] <Steve_Zhang> Thanks everyone for a great session :-)
[2012-07-29 06:20:17] <Ebe123> At 5:20
[2012-07-29 06:20:20] <BirgitteSB> Thanks
[2012-07-29 06:20:23] <Steve_Zhang> :)
[2012-07-29 06:20:24] <Ebe123> Thanks
[2012-07-29 06:20:29] <Ebe123> also
[2012-07-29 06:20:32] <Steve_Zhang> thanks for coming
[2012-07-29 06:20:32] <Steve_Zhang> ya?
[2012-07-29 06:21:50] <Demiurge1000> ya!
[2012-07-29 06:22:06] <Steve_Zhang> ok, bye bye everyone :-)
[2012-07-29 06:22:11] <Demiurge1000> Steve_Zhang: I don't always have write access to #wikipedia-en, so I'll message you on-wiki instead.
[2012-07-29 06:22:16] <Steve_Zhang> Okay :)
[2012-07-29 06:22:17] <Demiurge1000> thanks!