[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 hoursâ€¦ 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> â€¦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 â€“ to raise questions and alerts about the neutrality of an article
[20:34:47] <Steven_Zhang> Reliable Sources noticeboard â€“ 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> maybeâ€¦.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,
[21:04:06] <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