IRC office hours/Office hours 2012-12-01(2)

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