Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 7

I removed the transclusion of

In {{DR case status}} let the bot rewrite current status with "review" or "stale" on timeout; make the bot leave other statuses alone. The bot matches edits against the list of volunteers, so that:

• it prevents "drive-by" volunteers opening the cases,
• it confuses disputants by marking cases "open" prematurely and
• it gets confused if an editor listed as volunteer is one of disputants.

This should be fixed.

• Support as author of proposal. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - the reason I requested a bot be written is for a few reasons, the first being that when there was no bot, some volunteers either weren't using the template, or didn't know how it works properly, which led into the second reason, to make it a lot simpler for volunteers. They don't need to worry about messing around with complex templates to offer assistance to a dispute, they just need to add their name to a list (with a call to action button provided for ease) and the bot takes the rest of it. I can probably have the last thing on the list fixed with some bot tweaks though.
  Help resolve disputes!
  11:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not very comfortable neither with idea that we trade the comfort of disputants for comfort of volunteers, nor with the issues I mentioned above. Anyway, there is sufficient amount of regular volunteers to perform minor clerking when needed. Theoretically the bot can be fixed to avoid all of these pitfalls, but the proposed implementations were discussed before and all of them were found significantly flawed; more complex algorithms are certain to introduce their own false positives and pitfalls... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm not so sure how the comfort of disputants is affected - could you elaborate?
      Help resolve disputes!
      11:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Many cases in August suffered from premature discussion, which may be clearly connected to the fact that bot marked the cases "open" once any volunteer greeted filing editor. Next, you might notice that in current "Internet Explorer" case I'm treated as volunteer, though I'm participant; this may put me in privileged position in eyes of other disputants, which is particularly not productive for the sake of dispute resolution. That said, as Noleander notes above, this modus operandi flies in face of "open DRN" "policy", as it automatically drops "open" status if volunteer didn't list himself for any reason. Overall, the current model is too limited to be usable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
        • What alternatives do you suggest - remember that the needassist status relies on the volunteer list too. The auto-change to open could be rewritten to check if all opening statements have been filled out, and the problem with volunteers being participants could be fixed with a crosscheck between the two.
          Help resolve disputes!
          12:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
          • I propose the manual approach because it is the easiest and less controversial. Frankly, I favor listless way: the bot should assume that all disputants' names are mentioned between "CASE NAME" and "CASE NAME discussion" sections, which (together with manual clerking in rare cases) would be the most reliable way to separate involved users and volunteers. If implemented, this may be documented in eg. Volunteering in collapsed section "Clerking instructions". The "manual clerking" bit involves moving the comments by editors who are not volunteering in the case (disputants who were not mentioned before, 3O volunteers, blocking admins or whoever comes to barely explain some aspect of the case) to the "Opening statements by [uninvolved] USERNAME". Note, that several volunteers already do that for purpose of integrity. Also note, that this doesn't necessarily means that list should be eliminated right away — it is completely unrelated matter with "community aspect vs. openness" rationales. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
            • Still, even my cut above is flawed, as bot will continue to open the cases when someone greets filing editor and warns that opening comments are still wanted before the discussion starts. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we should disucss this carefully before acting - while the current approach has some flaws, it does make it a lot easier for volunteers - tweaking it may solve the problems without making it more complex for volunteers. While we do need to make the process easy for participants, we lack enough volunteers and thus making it easy for them will over time make it easy for participants.

Well, we are discussing it, aren't we? If not, then when and where is it to be discussed? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Steven. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 11:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Especially the fact that the bot is reverting edits of human editors. That is not acceptable. Bots are supposed to help editing WP, not hinder. --Noleander (talk) 13:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Having the bot miss a few things is less problematic than having to wade through all of a filing to figure out what the status is. Hasteur (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC) I take that back... EarwigBot did not do what I expected. Specifically, I reviewed the thread then updated the case status. EarwigBot then proceeded to move the case back to the "Needs review" status[1][2] again after it missed that I had deliberately reset the clock. I now support the reduction in the bot's responsibilities or a flag to tell the bot to leave the status alone. Hasteur (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I also thought about the flag, but this would make the whole thing either even less reliable (if this flag is only visible in source) or even more confusing (if this flag is visible). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Per-case subpages

Make per-case subpages, transcluded into

• Support as author of proposal. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, as it would make it easier to manage one's watchlist. There were concerns in the
  (talk)
  13:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose It will not calm people down and will just be harder for the volunteers. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 11:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Thinking about this carefully for a few days, I do see some benefits - quieter discussions and easier to keep track of for participants - but the downsides are much worse in my opinion - a volunteer would need to have a case watchlisted to keep track of it, as opposed to the whole of DRN to keep track of the lot, thus discussions on subpages could blow out in size and go unattended for much longer than it would at DRN. DRN isn't SPI - subpaging works at SPI because they're often on-going issues, so a easy-to-locate record is needed. My main concern is for volunteers - I haven't seen any complaints or comments from participants that having all disputes on one page makes things difficult, but I do see a low amount of volunteers this month, and I fear that subpaging cases would worsen this. I'm happy to discuss the merits of such a change, but I don't quite think its up to a "voting" stage as of yet.
  Help resolve disputes!
  11:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • IMO the current state of affairs (11 cases with 3 of them 4 days old and others semi-stale) show that huge DRN page is a burden for volunteers. At least it is ways more difficult to follow then, say, AfD. FWIW I am a volunteer, and currently the DRN page limits my ability to participate. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Having a look at the stats compared to May, we've had less volunteers - I've gone and poked a few volunteers to see if we can get more help. I don't think subpaging disputes will have much impact apart from hiding a dispute away from easy view though.
      Help resolve disputes!
      11:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
      • WP:DRN with all current disputes transcluded into it isn't an easy view? Why? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk
        ) 12:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Easy to view, hard to keep track of - if a volunteer wanted to keep track of all disputes (like you can at DRN now) you'd need to watchlist each case individually. It's possible that cases will slip through the cracks this way, and I'm worried about that. We could always run a trial for a week starting September to see if it improves things.
          Help resolve disputes!
          03:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
          • As Noleander notes below, we have a prior discussion which (in my view) generally favors the subpages, so I think a trial may be ood choice. Note, that requires substantial changes to the bot and to the script. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral Not saying either support or oppose. There's times where having a individual subpage that encapsulates all the issues in one, on the other side, it's a PITA to have to crawl into each subpage to find out what's going on there. Hasteur (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Er, pages are supposed to be transcluded in the central location, so that you don't have to crawl anything — just watchlist the disputes you want and the DRN for the feed of new cases for review. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - This talk page already has a discussion above at Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Per-case_subpages_poll on this very topic. Many editors responded there, with thoughtful comments. By starting an entirely new, duplicate thread, it effectively ignores the comments in the prior thread. There is no reason to start a new thread. --Noleander (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The focus of that discussion was blurred by you accusing me of elitism, and the discussion stalled before you stopped pushing forward this nonsense. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening timeout

Document that the cases should not be opened within 24 hours since inception if major viewpoints are not represented in "Opening statements". All comments are welcome, but the August history of DRN shows that dispute are better assessed once succinct summaries are in place. This proposal shouldn't alter the behaviour towards cases, which evidently should be closed (opened by banned editors, no prior discussion, etc).

• Support as author of proposal. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support as a principle, oppose as a hard and fast rule - we don't want to be too inflexible, but your observations are correct, so we should note this somewhere.
  Help resolve disputes!
  11:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The idea was to stop opening cases without any reason. If the proposal about bots' actions is endorsed, this actually results in slight change to the note in "CASE NAME discussion" subsection (eg. "Please, don't use this section until opening comments are filed, use article's talk page instead") and an a line in docs (eg. "It is preferable to wait for disputants' comments before opening the case. Still, if there is a reasonable concern that remaining opening comments won't be filed within 24 hours since the case's inception, the case should be acted upon without further waiting"). Hard limit is IMO impractical, and it is definitely rejected by community in RfC above. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, but not as a rule, per Steven. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 11:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - There is an open RfC above on this very topic (when should commenting be permitted if some opening statements missing?). It is inappropriate and confusing to open yet another discussion while the RfC is active. The RfC is still open and outside editors are sill providing input. Proposals for the perceived consensus should be within the RfC discussion above. --Noleander (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • As I noted in RfC, it is unrelated to my suggestion — I don't propose to require all parties to file statements before opening the case. As I mentioned above, this suggestion doesn't forbid others' input, it only documents that cases should not be opened for parties' discussion unless there is a reason to do so. Please, pay attention. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The responses to the RfC are clearly addressing the question of time-outs. For example, the comment from user Baker: "There might be a case for asking people not to add general comments for (say) 24 hours after the DRN was filed in order to give time for those opening statements to be made". There is no reason to start "your own" discussion when there is already a discussion underway. --Noleander (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but these discussions are not on the same topic. They intersect, but due to your choice to ask a narrow question, and your insistence on continuing RfC with obvious outcome the loosely related comments still may come to that thread. FWIW, in last two weeks the comments boil down to "per TransporterMan" anyway. So if some thread should be closed, then it is RfC. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Table - Per Noleander. You don't get to call the question while debate is still continuing (unless cloture is invoked) Hasteur (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Dispute overview and opening statement

Separate "Dispute overview" from "Opening statements by filing editor". This would encourage more detached explanation of issue alongside with filing editor's position.

The path for further discussion if this point gets supported: should we encourage filing editors to avoid "Dispute overview" field if they are unsure whether they can describe the dispute neutrally? Should the volunteers be encouraged to rewrite "Dispute overview" if more neutral wording is possible?

• Support as author of proposal and support the suggestion by SGCM right below this comment; I have no preference over my or SGCM's proposals. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC) updated 14:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• I would support renaming "Dispute overview" to "Opening statements by the filing editor," but oppose separate sections. The filing editor is rarely able to describe an overview of the dispute neutrally. Volunteers should be able to understand the gist of the dispute from reading the opening comments. The overview section is at best unnecessary, and at worst a hindrance that provides readers with a biased view of the dispute (and, unlike opening statements, the bias isn't openly declared). Volunteers on DRN realize that "Overview" as it is now is synonymous with the POV of the filing editor, but third party editors new to DRN may not realize this.--
  (talk)
  12:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Fairly reasonable and addresses my initial concern. I would still try to split the sections at least as experiment, as currently filing editor has no place to express his POV except for this field. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, as the apparent neutrality requirement of "Dispute overview" doesn't give the filing editor the same chance to clearly express their POV as the other participants get in their opening statements. I would like to see more instructions on the structure of a good opening statement, and a repurposed "Dispute overview" that would have a structure encouraging consensus building, such as sections for "Which parts can we agree on?" (where anyone could propose and strike statements) and "What questions do any of us feel need to get answered here?" (where anyone could propose questions and tentative answers). --TuukkaH (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per SGCM - filing editors rarely describe the dispute neutrally, that's why there are opening statements for the other involved editors, so us volunteers can get the full picture before commenting. I don't think that creating 2 sections for the filing editor (overview and opening statement) will give us any more information that we do not already get with the current structure. Size is also a consideration - we don't want a 500 word overview and a 5,000 word opening statement (open to changing the wording of the section text though)
  Help resolve disputes!
  20:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Yes, as a statement from an involved editor might not summarize neutrally. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support rename only. Because it's landed in our bucket, it's almost gaurnteed that the issue has already boiled past the point of viewpoints, therefore the filing editor's viewpoint is typically the "overview". Hasteur (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - If I understand this proposal, it would add yet another field to the form. I think the number of fields should be minimized, so the process can be kept really simple. If the filing editor's opening statement is not neutral, the volunteer, or others, can re-state the issue at the top of the Discussion section. However, I do think re-naming to "Opening statements by filing editor " is a good idea. --Noleander (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

DRN header

Refactor DRN header the way there would be only one button — "Request dispute resolution", — and the link to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering would be served with explicit statement that everybody is welcome to participate as volunteer without any nomination, approval or other prior process. Regardless all discussion here we still receive these comments. Frankly, I have no idea about how the idea of "volunteer is everyone who participates in others' DRN cases" can be communicated more explicitly.

• Support as author of proposal. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Why not add a statement like "Anyone who participates as a third party editor is a volunteer. All editors are invited to volunteer." to the infobox and bold it?--
  (talk)
  13:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Generally for the same reason I collapsed the Guides — people tend not to read text of more or less substantial size, so only critical information should be kept uncollapsed in headers IMO. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - the button to volunteer is there for the reason that people tend to not read text - and having the button there makes it highly visible.
  Help resolve disputes!
  20:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The problem is that having button implies that something happens if this button is pressed and doesn't happen if it isn't. Thus this button probably contributes more to the believe that volunteers are somehow special then to the opposite. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    • We can change the wording of the button, but having a clear call to action as opposed to just text is something very high on my list of priorities.
      Help resolve disputes!
      23:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Steven Zhang. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 11:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, Solution in search of a problem? Hasteur (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

New case statuses

Partially implemented: "fail"/"failed" status is already in place, "onhold" requires separate discussion if any. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Introduce new statuses for {{DR case status}}:

on hold

The case can't proceed due to some reason (editor requested n-days timeout due to IRL circumstances, resolution on conduct DR forum may affect the case or the reason of the dispute is expected to dissolve IRL in a couple of days)

failed

The DRN case was opened and then closed, but the dispute remains; it is needed to separate cases resolved out of DRN (on talk page) and failures of DRN process.

• Support as author of proposal. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support both. The second status is especially necessary for keeping track of DRN's success to failure ratio, and is crucial to improving the process. Also, the bot should be tweaked so that it freezes the time count for "on hold" cases.--
  (talk)
  12:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support the latter, neutral to the former - the latter makes sense, but instead of "on hold" we should move the dispute to some sort of holding pen instead of clogging up DRN.
  Help resolve disputes!
  20:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually "on hold" cases can be collapsed, or de-transcluded if "detach" proposal receives acceptance. I specifically avoided implementation details, though there is quite a lot to settle with any of these proposals. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Or the bot can move it somewhere else. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 10:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support ~~Ebe123~~ → report 11:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support the 2nd, neutral on the first: What prevents us from adding a collapse template around the dispute filing when it's on a reasonable freeze? Hasteur (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal for more proposals and navel gazing discussions

People like making proposals. Like the

Bicycle shed

everyone wants to be able to point at something and say "I did that", so let's satisfy our innate desire to come up with tweaks and fix everything. We can even completely ignore our original mandate of helping disputants by spending time/energy/electrons editing this page and completely ignoring the dispute filings.

• Tongue in Cheek Support As author. Hasteur (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Over half of the above proposals are already the subject of active discussion threads above in this Talk page. It is very bad form to start new discussions afresh. It splinters the discussion and causes confusion. The duplicated discussions here (the lower/newer ones) should be stricken. --Noleander (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my sarcasm-fu was too strong for you, but the point I was making is that we're investing way too much time making motions/proposals/policies and not enough time in resolving disputes. Hasteur (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of "I did that" and DRN participation: are you sure your comment was pointed in right direction? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

New case status implemented: Failed

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Consensus for a new "failed" case status looks to have been established in the

(talk)

17:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The bot has been updated. — Earwig ^talk 18:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Signpost article

Help resolve disputes!

06:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

User talk discussions

About this edit. Do user talk discussions on content disputes fulfill the requirement for discussion prior to a DRN request? My understanding is that if a content dispute (that is explicitly not a conduct dispute) has been thoroughly discussed by multiple editors, then it doesn't matter where the discussion is located, including user talk pages.--

(talk)

02:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Use your judgement if the discussion was on namespace 3 (User talk). ~~Ebe123~~ → report 18:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where the discussion happened, as long as it happened. So the instructions should not require it to be specifically on the article talk page. --Noleander (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll drop my 2¢ here too. When I first witnessed the case, which was closed because there was no discussion on article's talk page, my first reaction was the same as of Noleander above. After some thought I concluded that it may make some sense to require discussion on article's talk page, as it may solicit knowledgeable editors, who can solve the dispute in place. This situation is somehow beneficial for the project, as it offloads DRN and helps editors get additional collaboration skills. On the other hand it leaves more chance for regular contributors to overwhelm the newcomer regardless of his argument. The latter is more severe then former, but it is also by far less probable. Overall I have no preference, but whatever trumps, it must be documented somewhere. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

My 1/50th of a Dollar I'm inclined to close filings that have only had discussion on individual users talk pages. The reason (IMO) is to give other people than the 2 editors the opportunity to respond before we try and take it on. Unless the outsider has the talk page of the user on watch they won't see the discussion taking place. This means that that the only people who will respond to the discussion are likely to have a POV in relation to the user (either pro or against). I'd leave the change in but have some secret cabalist's instruction sheet that says we can overlook this guideline (and open the filing) if the discussion on the talk page did demonstrate the same level of discourse we'd see on the article talk page. Hasteur (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

My view is kinda simple. If the back and forth is only on a user talkpage and btween only two editors and there is not extensive discussion, it can be assumed that the situation is a conflict between two editors and has not risen to the level of a dispute of content for DR/N. However, if there are more than two and there is extensive discussion move that discussion to the article talkpage and allow the DR/N filing. Even if the discussion is not extensive I suggest moving the discussion to the article talkpage or you are unlikely to get further input and unlikely to see a resolution to the situation. Many times disputes amount to little more than two editors in a disagreement, which can and probably should be handled through third opinion, even if on the article talkpage.

I propose that a change to our criteria in simply suggesting that before a dispute is filed with DR/N, it be extensivly discussed in the open forum of the article's talkpage where the dispute has arisen. I would also support a change to requiring that disputes between two editors have third opinion FIRST before coming here...but not sure how others feel about that.--

talk

) 00:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Tried to edit

Tried to edit noticeboard twice, both times all my work vanished into the void. I give up, this is too hard.Bobzchemist (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You might want to know that we have an active bot helping us to maintain the page. To open case you need to drop a comment in "XYZ discussion". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Eliminate duplicated case-state information?

D. Czarkoff above proposed removing the detailed case-state descriptions from Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Volunteering because they are duplicating the similar information in {{DR case status}}. I'm putting that proposal here to start a fresh discussion, so it is not lost in the section above. --Noleander (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

DC is correct, there is a lot of duplication there, so maybe it could be streamlined somewhat. On the other hand, the Volunteering page does need some text explaining the lifecycle of a typical case: For instance, it must list those situations where a volunteer is expected to manually set a case state. So maybe eliminate the table-based data, add a prominent link to {{DR case status}}, and explicitly enumerate the handful of situations when a state should be changed manually? --Noleander (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that there should be a brief note about this template:

The DRN cases' statuses are tracked with {{DR case status}}, which is supposed to be updated both by volunteers and bot. It is strongly suggested that DRN volunteers read the templates documentation, which explains the way the bot interacts with this template, as well as the cases when volunteersare supposed to change its arguments.

— Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• I disagree that we should remove the explanation of the statuses from the volunteering page. For a new volunteer, the statuses as well as how they should handle a dispute depending on the status, is unclear. The template documentation provides no explanation of what a template status means, or how they should handle a dispute in that particular status - and I think that having the descriptions there doesn't have any drawbacks, so we should keep it.
  Help resolve disputes!
  07:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Idea was not only to remove the information from WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering, but also concentrate the information in template's description page. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I can't see a logical reason to remove it from the volunteering page at all, apart from "it takes up space" which really isn't an argument at all. I think it's invaluable for new volunteers (I wouldn't have added it if I didn't think it useful) and would like to know for what reason we should remove it. It's not there for the experienced volunteers who already know what the templates mean, it's for the new volunteers that are getting started. (I'm going to bed - I won't see any replies for 10 hours - please bear that in mind).
      talk
      ) 12:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Steven, could you please also mention the documentation fragmentation issue I'm trying to bring your attention to. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
        • I don't see any duplication. On the volunteering page, each status has an explanation of what exactly the status means, and how a volunteer should handle the situation. On the template page, there's no information about this - just info showing what the different states of the templates are. If anything, we should expand the template documentation. I am strongly opposed to removing the information from the volunteering page.
          talk
          ) 00:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Just as a matter of principle (minimizing double work) I dislike redundancy. And, on the face of it, there does appear to be some duplication here: a list of the states, colored boxes, etc. Certainly the Volunteering page does need an excellent description of all the states. One can envision an ideal approach where the states are listed and explained in page X, and page X is transcluded into other pages (e.g. the Volunteering page) as needed. That would be ideal. But it would take some work to make it happen, and I think there are some other higher priority improvements happening in DRN right now. My gut feeling is to leave it alone for a few months, then come back to it later when the dust has settled down on all the other changes. --Noleander (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I have a feeling that I missed something: what are those "other changes"? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 02:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the handful of proposals listed above: the Corn-colored state-merger proposal; the RfC; and the several proposals listed under "Proposal to change DRN practices". For simple minds like my own that is a lot to keep track of  :-) But maybe that is just me. By all means: everyone should continue pursuing all proposals and improvements you can think of! --Noleander (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I think all of those is already gone. The result of RfC is obvious and doesn't require implementation, and the rest of proposals requires the changes to the bot, so lack of Steven's support effectively blocks them whatever one may conclude on kilobytes of discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 02:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm a strong believer in consensus - if there is agreemeent to make a change within the community, I will not block such a change just because I disagree with it. That said, I made many of the changes at DRN after thinking through them carefully for some time, and after much consultation with members of the community. I think that the results of August show that the changes made had a positive impact, and that we should focus on getting more volunteers for the meantime - I fully support merging the needassist and review statuses (into review) and setting two rules where the status will be triggered, either if the thread has had 15k of discussion without volunteer comment, or if the thread has been open for 7 days.

talk

) 03:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Success/fail ratio

Would it be possible to display a per month success/fail ratio for DRN cases (and have it updated by the bot)? A ratio can be used to better evaluate the success of DRN. The current ratio for September (when the failed case status was first implemented) is 2 resolved cases and 1 failed case.--

(talk)

22:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I am also interested in this info - As I was just here in a dispute and i am wondering exactly what the propose of the page is. I have been here 4 times over 6 years and never had a problem solved here. Is this place simply a place to get more involved with a topic or is there anything binding from here? Dont get me wrong I think we need this place and great people are here, just wondering how suscesfull outcome are in-general.Moxy (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if this helps or anything, but DRN has been going through a large overhaul (along with the entire dispute resolution process), so hopefully things will improve! There's an

(talk)

23:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that info... Sorry if I sound negative - not my intent.Moxy (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem! DRN should always be improving. And don't worry, it's not just you, a lot of people have complained about the dispute resolution process in the past. Hopefully things can change for the better. :)--

(talk)

23:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Moxy, this noticeboard was created 1 year ago, you cannot of been here for 6 years. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry let me rephrase that - have been to these dispute resolution type page 4 times in 6 years - So many of these dispute resolution pages its hard to keep track if it was here or at one of the other 20 noticeboards of this type. Normally edit history and genetics articles and dont have the same type of conflics you do with music (I was here about music).Moxy (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, and some users are trying to cut down the number of noticeboards. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Settdigger's Complaint

The Kafkaesque is so sweet. Dear SGCM, why did you close my request for dispute resolution immediately? Thank you in advance for helping me understand this. Sincerely, Settdigger (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

DRN is not for conduct disputes. There's a section on

(talk)

07:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Brother SGCM, I do believe that you may not have taken the time to read my comments on the page you mention.  :)

Settdigger (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

In a related matter, allow me to apologize here for my behavior of a week previous. I do most forthrightly intend to be as helpful as I can here for our readers and all of us. Thank you, brothers. Settdigger (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Wording of corn-colored status bar?

After a case is open 4 days, the status bar turns creamed-corn color, and has the wording "This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed." That doesn't seem quite right. In the case Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Carlos_Gardel, there has been active discussion for 4 straight days, and 2 volunteers are involved, and the case is making steady progress. So the wording "This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed" is not accurate. Maybe this state should be combined with the ivory-colored state "This marks a discussion that has been opened, but hasn't been commented on by anyone in a day." The lack of activity is what is important. If a case goes 5,6,7 days with activity & progress, that seems fine. I don't think a special state is needed to indicate cases longer than 4 days, provided they are being worked on. RfCs go for 30 days. Four days seems a little rushed: many editors do not check into WP every day. --Noleander (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Question: In the current design of the bot: if the case is over 4 days old, and is inactive for more than one day: which state "wins"? The 4-days old (corn colored) or inactive (ivory colored)? This ambiguity is part of the problem. Again, a good solution may be to focus on the inactive status, and don't worry about the longevity of an active case. --Noleander (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It is the design of bot, and he reverts status changes. I suspect that the rationale can be found here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The wording of the corn-colored status bar, or "Review", can be changed via

(talk)

00:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess I could change the wording. But I'd like input from others on whether the 4-day-old status is even necessary. If there is consensus that it has little value, I'd rather spend the time asking Earwig to remove it, than messing with the wording. --Noleander (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

These statuses are actually different: "stale" is to be used when discussion didn't receive replies, and "review" – if the volunteer fails to handle the dispute. I wouldn't trust "review" to bot, at least not as timeout. BTW I had a situation when I wanted to use this status (and probably several situations when somebody else thought I should do so). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but the question is: could Review and Stale be combined into one state, namely "This case needs attention from a volunteer"? The action needed is the same for both Review & Stale: a new volunteer is needed to jump in; either because no volunteer has yet started; or because the prior volunteer departed or gave up. How the case got there is not too important. --Noleander (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

BTW: here is a comment from the source code of the bot:

        The case will be set to "needassist" if 15,000 bytes have been added
        since a volunteer last edited, "stale" if no edits have occured in two
        days, or "review" if it has been open for over four days.

--Noleander (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

@Czarkoff: Just to clarify: You agree that the bot should not be automatically changing case status to "Review needed" after 4 days, or even at any time, correct? --Noleander (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to think about the purpose of DRN, which is to resolve relatively straightforward content disputes. If a dispute is still unresolved after 4 or 5 days, should we not consider what else can be done (like MedCom) to resolve the dispute?

Help resolve disputes!

05:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

@Noleander, IMO these statuses shouldn't be changed automatically. BTW, your argument that the same action is needed in all three cases is quite compelling, I wouldn't object joining these three statuses.

@Steven Zhang, we should do it always, not after 4–5 days. And bot should always not. In "Jolla" the case received "review" status before discussion started, in previous reiteration of "CBS Records" the core of problem wasn't even yet clear by the 4-day timeout and so on. I'm pretty confident, that if any visual markers are needed, human beings are ways better then bots in determining such conditions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

@SZ: Four days is a very short time. I think those of us that have the luxury of editing WP every day sometimes forget that other editors don't always edit every day. Sometimes the case may span a weekend, or a holiday. Or a volunteer may suggest a new line of thought that takes a few days to flesh-out. If we had to use a timer that a bot enforces, maybe 10 or 15 days would be reasonable. --Noleander (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Summarizing the issues:

1. Should these 3 states be merged down to 2 or 1 state: Stale (no edits recently); NeedsAssist (no volunteer edit lately); Review (still active, but open too long)
2. If the Review state stays: should the bot automatically change state to Review after a fixed number of days? or only manually changed?
3. If the Review state stays, and is automatically set by bot: Should the number of days be increased from 4 to a larger number?

My initial impression is that we could collapse those 3 states down to 2 states or one state. As for automatic setting: the bot should not set it after age reaches 4 days; but could set the state for 2 days of idleness (or for older than, say, 10 days). --Noleander (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

After some thinking I conclude that we should leave "stale" state alone (and keep bot invoking it on timeout), drop "review" altogether (it calls for an action that should be performed regularly regardless this status) and keep the bot away from "needsassist" status and editors setting it. The documentation we have at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering should be cleaned of {{DR case status}} description; instead it should insist on reading the documentation of DRN templates carefully. The documentation of {{DR case status}} should explain the bot's involvement with template comprehensively. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

@DC: Your suggestion about cleaning up duplicate documentation is a good one. I put it in a new section in this talk page, below, so this section doesn't get too confused with multiple ideas. --Noleander (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. To re-state: Eliminate the Review state; Keep the Stale state (very useful); Keep the NeedsAssist state and define it as "This case is active, but probably needs some special attention to bring it to closure". Bot will set to Stale, but not to Review or NeedsAssist. --Noleander (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Needassist should stay - these recommendations are contingent on the idea that no-one here will have periods of inactivity. The needassist is there in case a thread has more than 15k of discussion and no volunteers have made comment in that time - it's there just in case we drop the ball. I think we should keep review but set it to 7 days. People are less likely to read a template documentation as opposed to a how-to page, so I can't see the reasoning for the argument to make volunteers read a template description page. The volunteering page should have all they need to know to get started.

talk

) 12:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Am I understanding your statement right: it is acceptable that volunteers don't pay attention to text and don't follow the links? IMO it is a huge violation of

WP:COMPETENCE, and a very bad one, given that we are talking about people who are supposed to handle disputes. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track

) 22:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The needassist is a reminder - I don't think it's a competence issue. In May, 21.4% of disputes were archived by a bot without any comments by a volunteer, since the changes in August all disputes were handled. The introduction of this template doesn't directly correlate to the results, but I do believe that our awareness is a contributing factor to the improvement in results. I am completely aware of the active volunteers here, but it's there as a safety, and I can't see a logical reason for it's removal.

talk

) 00:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Steven, the competence issue is not about needassist; it is about documentation (and indeed I wouldn't trust any dispute to someone who fails to follow the link to template's documentation – lack of attention is disabling factor for DR). Regarding needassist: I think that the underlying idea of this status (unlike the one behind "review") is perfectly valid. That's why nobody advocates for its removal – the suggestion was to merge two ("needassist" and "stale") or three (& "review") statuses that effectively call for the same action – attention from another reviewer. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd be open to the idea of merging needassist and review - stale is something else completely though and should remain separate. Regarding documentation, I direct you to the results of the dispute resolution survey - one question asked respondents for reasons that they haven't volunteered in dispute resolution, and a common response was that they didn't know how to get involved. The results for last month showed the shortage of volunteers (a 20% reduction in numbers). I think we should make things as simple as possible - new volunteers will get the hang of it eventually, but we should have all the info that they need to get started on one page.

talk

) 01:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I likeSZhang's suggestion here: Merge Review & NeedsAssist into one state (perhaps called "NeedsAssist"); leave Stale alone. And change the bot to only go to NeedsAssist/Review after 7 days (was 4). DDC: Does that sound okay to you? If you want to go even "farther" (e.g. merge all 3 states into one; or eliminate bot auto-setting the state to Review/NeedsAssist) could we do this in two stages? Stage 1 = Implment SZhang suggestion now (merge Review & N.A into one); Stage 2 = wait a month or so, then propose more changes. Is that okay? --Noleander (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

@Noleander: I have no objections. At least it seems to be something nobody disagrees with, quite a rare occasion on this talk page.

Okay, so it sounds like there are three editors supporting merging Review into NeedsAssist. I'll wait a couple of more days and see if there are any objections. If none, I'll ask the bot maintainer to make the change. --Noleander (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I posted a bot-change request on Earwigs talk page at User_talk:The_Earwig#Small_change_to_DRN_bot. --Noleander (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

@Steven: Don't you think that if the need to RTFM is a bar for these folks, they probably should stay as far from DRN as possible? Recently we had quite a bit of wrongheaded discussions, or just discussions when participants fail to communicate each other the most basic concepts. Do you think that someone incapable of following a link may help with such disputes? Obviously, collecting template's documentation at the single site means that both reasons the statuses are set and actions to take depending on them should be explained in such centralized documentation. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 02:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that there should be different documentation on the template page as opposed to the information that's on the volunteering page. The template documentation should only describe what each state produces, i.e. {{DR case status|stale}} = what the template looks like in that state. The volunteering page should explain how a volunteer should actually address a dispute in that state. Dispute resolution has a steep learning curve. I created DRN both to make it easier to handle disputes, but also to make it easier for editors to get involved in dispute resolution. Removing the descriptions from the volunteering page impacts that, and that is the reason for my objection.

talk

) 03:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Slow month

Hi all. I think some volunteers may be feeling a bit burnt out. If anyone has any ideas on improving the situation, I think we should all air them. Maybe we could do some reward board stuff?

talk

) 05:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I'm just busy in real life, and won't have much time for DRN for a bit. I'll return soon. One area of improvement I could see would be to slow down the pace of change (changes to the process; changes to the documentation, etc). There is no rush. We should propose a change; then solicit input from uninvolved editors (consider using the RfC process); then wait a few weeks. It is not healthy to have only a few "regulars" dominating things (and I include myself as a regular). That said, it always works out in the end :-) --Noleander (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The current attempt at reducing the overall number of noticeboards should draw in new volunteers from the noticeboards that used to compete with DRN. Perhaps we should also emphasize that all third party editors are considered volunteers, and that they should list themselves as volunteers (for the bot), if they haven't yet already.--

(talk)

01:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

As an addendum, it would be great if we could somehow signal to EarwigBot that we're commenting on a DRN thread as a uninvolved user instead of a DRN volunteer. I did the user shuffle yesterday so that Earwig bot wouldn't throw open a filing when I was trying to encourage the ancilary commentary to stop. Hasteur (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

So, if we get to zero active disputes do we get to go on vacation for a week? ;) Hasteur (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Steven, you should post, more than once, at the talk pages of all the noticeboards for volunteers, and offer training. Even then, some people might feel that their skills are best used in a more specialist context. The phrasing on RSN "editors interested in sourcing will respond" has always sounded like it was written just for me; I'm interested in sourcing, not sure if I have all the skills and patience for general DR. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

"Failed" Vs "Closed" vs. "Resolved"

Perhaps it's me but I don't really understand the distinct values of these 3 statuses. I understand Failed as "We couldn't bang out a solution" and Resolved as "We could bang out a resolution". What does closed mean?

Failed means that dispute resolution was attempted, but no consensus was reached. Resolved means that dispute resolution was attempted and successful. Closed means that dispute resolution was not attempted because the DRN request failed to meet DRN's criteria (no extensive talk page discussion, conduct dispute, etc).--

(talk)

11:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

"Closed" is a general fallback parameter. It is also used when the dispute was resolved elsewhere. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

That's true.--

(talk)

12:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Steeler Nation#Criticism

I do not think the reason is correct. If the parties are unable to change, MEDCOM would not work and ArbCom would be "more effective". If the parties are mentioned as a reason for failiure, then a part of the dispute must be conduct, to be resolved before the content. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 19:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

First, feel free to revert the closure or change reason – I don't own that thread. Next, I thought MedCom could help, as it provides more careful handling and privileged communication DRN can't and shouldn't offer. It can also simply dismiss some arguments and enforce particular viewpoint, which we are not entitled to do here. These things are significant in such cases. Third, I also recommended RfC. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI There's already a filing at ArbCom on this and it's almost mathematically impossible that it'll be accepted at this point. RFC or MedCom (Arbcom doesn't want any piece of content decisions) are the two options short of a "no holds barred" AN* thread, but everyone looses if it goes there. Hasteur (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I already commented there that I endorse case, as content issues are borderline and secondary compared to alleged (and implied) conduct issues. Still, it seems to have snowball's chance in hell, so probably RfC could help. Frankly, my experience on other sites show that such issues are best addressed with short-term blocks for all participants, but this goes against the spirit of Wikipedia, and I'm not sure whether there is a proper, established way to cope with disputes of a kind. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that everybody loses with ArbCom, but I do not think an RfC would work as the disputants would just keep on reverting, no matter what. I think that page-banning would work though. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 01:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

If RfC succeeds in bringing fresh voters, it may change the balance and make people stop reverting. If properly closed, it would result in some kind of decision that can be enforced at

WP:AN/I using short-term blocks or topic bans if required. Right now the situation is too vague for any action. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track

) 01:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm very pessimistic, but it might work. I think it will be unlikely for the decision to be making the parties settling down. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 01:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not optimistic on this either, but currently I see no starting point for any measures that would not go against the Wikipedia spirit. AFAIK only ArbCom is allowed to impose editing restrictions in case no party was found to be wrong in content dispute and coduct issues are not particularly severe. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

What does "AFAIK" mean? So I'm not saying that ArbCom and another place can impose restrctions (except for community discussion). ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Minorities in Greece

This dispute resolution request was not resolved but closed - this is probably due to my inability to edit in Wikipedia for some time. Meanwhile I don't know if the other side of this dispute still holds their opinion but I see that all my edits in the article reverted back. I may go on and make the changes I planned again - but I would first like to see an objective outsider's view here. Filanca (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Your last comment on the talk page is from 9 October 2011. If you want to revive case, discuss the matter on talk page first, and if discussion stalls, file a new request. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Premature closure of Family therapy?

I was invovled in the the Family therapy thread and think it was prematurely closed. From what I can tell the conclusion that "DRN volunteers unanimously found table violating WP:OR" is incorrect (not on my part for the image being WP:OR but that all the DRN volunteers thought so). As well I didn't get a chance to respond and there seemed to be an incorrect impression left about the agreement in the previous DRN on the same issue. I'm not sure it'll do any good to lay the arguments out here but if you guys can look at it, it would be appreciated. CartoonDiablo (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Jumping the gun AGAIN? What did the closing comments say. "If you have a problem with this, bring it up with the closer". Being that your posting to the closer's page was at 14:51 and your posting here is at 15:08 (less than 20 minutes) don't you think you didn't give enough time for Czarkoff to respond? In addition, if you had checked, you would have seen that Czarkoff's last edit was at 13:51, nearly a full hour before your ping on the talk page. Not to be bureaucratic, but you might want to withdraw this discussion until the discussion on the closer's talk page has concluded. At this point it seems like you're portraying a low level form of

WP:FORUMSHOP. Hasteur (talk

) 15:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

@Hasteur: thanks, I was offline since that edit.

@CartoonDiablo at al: I responded at

WP:NPOV; I edited the closing statement accordingly. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track

) 17:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion from my talk page is moved here per

WP:MULTI. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track

) 18:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi I was involved in the recent dispute resolution over the psychotherapy image and I think it was prematurely closed. For one, only one volunteer found it WP:OR and I didn't get a chance to respond/come to an agreement about it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Kerfuffler said it is

does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted

.

If you disagree, undo my edit (you'll have to do it manually, but there is no much work to do). Please include a link to this discussion in the edit summary (eg. "/* Family therapy */ reopening per [[user talk:czarkoff#Premature closure of dispute resolution?]]"). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Given that I filed the most recent DRN about this issue - and at the risk of incurring the wrath of all the editors who have taken part in previous iterations of the dispute - may I say that I too was slightly surprised at the speed with which it was closed. I think that the conclusion that

meta-analyses

, and 2) the interpretation of 'absence of evidence'.

While not having any great formal expertise on these issues (which is why I did suggest obtaining an opinion from someone with expertise in scientific research in general, rather than from someone within the clinical sphere, who would, apparently, likely have some bias one way or another in the CBT vs psychodynamic wars), can I say - for what it's worth - that I think that CartoonDiablo fell into error on a couple of fundamental points: Firstly, he greatly over-rated the significance of meta-analyses generally, apparently believing that quantity of studies included in the meta-analysis was in itself a measure of merit, whereas in fact the particular methodology used is very significant, and systematic error and bias are not always easily discernible in such studies: the article on Meta-analysis describes some of these disadvantages and weaknesses.

Secondly, he interpreted the 'holes/absences/silences' in the French study as grounds for making a positive assertion, ie, "No effect". This is an error and a fundamental problem in epistemology: Distinguishing absence of evidence from evidence of absence.

Given that the logical conclusion flowing from the sum total of disputes about this issue would appear to be that there are strong grounds for removal of the table from all of the articles, I would have liked to have seen a bit more thorough analysis and discussion on the specific points I raised. I'm not necessarily asking for the dispute to be reopened, but I think it could have been concluded a bit more satisfactorily. Marschalko (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

See, there is a problem here: the table (specifically the image version) is hard to edit, so unless it is prosified, neither you nor CartoonDiablo have a chance to rectify position and identify the core of the problem. Apparently, once the prose lands into article, it receives some weight, which is unknown as of now; furthermore, flexible format of prose allows to avoid oversimplified "no effect" statements, and the particular way to properly word the underlying idea wasn't even discussed by now. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I agree with you Czarkoff: the table should go. With regard to prosifying, I note that there is already some prose in each of the articles (that I am aware of) where the table has/had been inserted -

Cognitive behavioural therapy, Psychoanalysis, and Family therapy. By way of comparison, I note that where the French Wikipedia cites the INSERM study (other than in Psychothérapie cognitivo-comportementale) - eg, Psychanalyse, Critique de la psychanalyse – it is noted in prose in the body of the article or in footnotes, that the study was the source of great controversy. It would seem to be appropriate to note that as well in the English version. Also, there is no similar table in the French Wikipedia articles. Marschalko (talk

) 20:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

All of this should go to talk page first. Removal of table changes the standing. Add the note, neutralize the prose and see what happens. If any new problems surface, fill free to open a new case, where the argument would be reviewed regarding then-current standing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Well a few points I wanted to make:

• The "no effect" is not based on absence of evidence, the study made clear that if it is not considered "proven" or "presumed" that it is considered ineffective and mentioned it explicitly which treatments have "little or no effect".
• There's no evidence that the image is WP:NPOV or WP:OR, at worst it got the "no effect" wrong but the whole point of the study and its conclusions were conveyed in the image (Specifically this chart).
• The second DRN agreement did allow for an image to be made, that was the basis that I agreed on and (strikingly) SGCM as well. There was some uncertainty for SGCM on whether it would be a good compromise or not but to say that an image "violates" the agreement is completely untrue.

And I don't think its a snowball cause especially since the study verifies why the image has "no effect" etc. The best course of action that I can see is to re-open the discussion or to create a new one; its a total dispute on each page that uses the image. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You're just proving the point. That NIH review only uses the words “no effect” to refer to one specific case (outpatient stabilized schizophrenia). All other cases were “no significant result”—which means they didn't have enough statistically significant data to draw a conclusion. —

Kerfuffler  harass
stalk

  00:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case I'm willing to change the image to something like "Unknown" if it can be shown. My impression from "no significant result" was that it meant it had little to no effect. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you peruse

Kerfuffler  harass
stalk

  00:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The study wasn't out to "prove" anything, it didn't even draw conclusions of overall effectiveness in its conclusion and, more importantly, has been upheld in every dispute resolution as a reliable source. The issue is over the accuracy of the image, not the study.

My proposal for going forward is either to re-open/make a new dispute resolution or for editors to show where the study said that there was not enough data to draw conclusions for x disorder for psychoanalysis and I'll change it in the image. Thus far the discussion was closed based on what seem to be incorrect pretenses. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm now completely confused. You're saying the study “didn't even draw conclusions of overall effectiveness”, and yet that's exactly what the article claims it did. These things do not jive. Additionally, the reporting of numerous “insignificant” results in a classic way to try make something look bad by implication (as noted in

Kerfuffler  harass
stalk

  01:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

@CartoonDiablo. Changing the table to prose or the image compromise were both proposals that I brought up in the case, to replace the inappropriately large table that was previously in the article, but never once did I say that both should be implemented, and I still think that using only the prose is the best option. The image compromise was mentioned as a compromise, but it was rejected, and most of the editors, including me, agreed that the information should be only conveyed in prose. I think there may have been an unintentional misinterpretation of the consensus here.--

(talk)

00:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this is picky of me but where was it rejected? I know I agreed to it on the basis of the image and didn't see anywhere it was affirmatively rejected. From what I recall one of the last comments was you asking about whether or not an image is the best comprimise which seems far from rejection.

Nevermind I missed the part about undoing the edit.CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

In the last few comments of the second DRN prior to it being closed. Per my last comment on the DRN: "Agreed, prose is still the best option here" and the closing comments by Ebe123 and Czarkoff. Compromises are usually offered on DRN cases when both sides of the dispute refuse to budge (see

(talk)

01:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I was a previously uninvolved editor on the three articles with the table. But having looked at following the ANI case, its use very clearly biases towards CBT and that I think was the purpose of its insertion. It's some years out of date and the UK equivalent through NICE has been very controversial within the profession, the research methods challenged etc. I have a colleague assembling some of that material for me and will edit the articles to balance the text that reports the French study. The consensus is clear, the compromise is clear and CartoonDiablo needs to accept that position. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Wrap-up RfC above on "posting before all opening statements"

The RfC on "posting comments before all opening statements" has reached 30 days, and new comments are no longer arriving. So it is a good time to wrap it up. Please post any thoughts at Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Should_the_consensus_be_placed_in_the_Volunteers_Instruction_page?, which asks if the RfC consensus should be written down in the Volunteers guidance page. Please post any comments there, not here, to keep comments co-located. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Missing Open DRN cases entry?

Why isn't Broadsword listed with the other entries in the colored Open DRN cases box? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It is as of now. Listed as: Broadsword Open ZarlanTheGreen (t) 2 days, 13 hours ago Guy Macon (t) 0 hours ago Guy Macon (t) 0 hours ago, and it was last updated on 09:01, 19 September 2012.--

(talk)

09:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Odd. It wasn't there earlier, but it is there now. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Bot uses case numbers (see comments right after {{

Family therapy discussion, he simply copy-pasted header from Broadsword case; consequently the bot overwrote "Broadsword" entry with "Family therapy". After I fixed the Family therapy case's header (including case number), the bot introduced the "Broadsword" case back to the template. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track

) 21:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a question: shouldn't this case be titled "Broadsword (disambiguation)" instead of just "Broadsword" and thus to be found at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Broadsword (disambiguation)? Also thinking of the later archived version. Sorry if I'm wrong. --Trofobi (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Should bot be changed to not revert volunteer state changes?

Superceeded by below RfC

About a month ago there was a discussion on this Talk page about the DRN bot. One of the issues that came up was: if an uninvolved editor (not on the List of Volunteers) wants to act as a volunteer, and manually sets the case to open, the bot reverts that change and resets the case to unassessed. That behavior has been there from day one of the bot, because it was in the original specification for the bot. I believe the purpose of this bot behavior is to prevent a participant in the case from opening a case. But that motivation seems like an exceeding rare situation that volunteers could quickly detect and correct. I propose the following: Change the bot so it does not revert case state changes (optional) The bot could use the list of parties to the case and prevent them from changing the case's state. At a minimum, (1) should be done so that volunteers' edits are not reverted. Task (2) is a bit more work for the bot maintainer, but is not too hard. Thoughts? --Noleander (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC) As I understand this proposal, this is about allowing non volunteers access to open the filed case and mediate the DR? Strong oppose. Why would we want to allow the possiblity of tag teaming which this could well encourage. No, if someone wants to mediate, the suggestion is for them to review policy and DR guidelines and add themselves to a list of volunteers. We need volunteers, but why would we want drive by mediators?-- talk ) 19:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC) WP has very few lists of editors that have special powers: Admins, Formal Mediators, ArbCom. Other lists of editors are just informal: Good article reviewers, Peer Reviewers, third-opinion givers. These informal lists have no special powers. The DRN list should be in the latter category: a list for informational purposes. People in the DRN list have not undergone any special training or approval. There was never a community discussion which authorized the DRN List members to have special powers (the power to open a DRN case). If we want that special status for the list members, a major WP community-wide discussion needs to be held. Until the community authorizes special powers for DRN list members, the bot should not be reverting edits of volunteers who have chosen to not put their name in the list. --Noleander (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC) @AMS: You write "Why would we want to allow the possiblity of tag teaming which this could well encourage." That is just speculation: until there is concrete evidence that tag teaming is being used to open cases in DRN, that speculation should not serve as the basis for the bot reverting edits of legitimate volunteers. The implication of what you are saying is that the DRN list members have some special stamp of approval that they are not tag-team associates. Again, the WP community has never given that special status to the DRN list. --Noleander (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC) DR/N volunteers don't have special powers and there was never a presumption that they do, or that they require special training. They do however need to be a listed volunteer to mediate a case and that should not change. If someone signs up, mediates one case and walks away, it might be a good idea to check into why they did that. But NO, your suggestion is to simply destroy the volunteer list and allow a free for all here, which most certainly does take away a great deal of work that has improved this board. So...you suggest waiting for the cows to leave the barn before we shut the door? Right...and perhaps we should wait until everyone involved is blocked before we take a case. No, I see absolutely no logical reason to do what you are asking. It very much is about doing away with the volunteers. Period. If we don't need a volunteer list of DR mediators...why do we need the board at all? Anyone can mediate at the talk page all they want. Why give them a specific forum to do so? The reason is to give editors an informal place to be mediated by those with specific interest in dispute resolution and handle DR/N on a case by case basis. You are suggesting we change a bots performance in order to to allow anyone to open a case and mediate. I contend that if they are interested in mediation they would volunteer within the process established here with consensus. I really think this would simply destroy this board in the long run and create a HUGE amount of drama.-- talk ) 20:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC) One specific reasoning here should be made. If you are listed and mediate and have talk ) 20:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Where was the community discussion that established the rule that an uninvolved editor needed to be in the DRN list in order to open a DRN case or mediate a DRN case? --Noleander (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC) That question is irrelevant. This noticeboard has had changes made based on a number of valid reasons and done so boldly. Can you direct me to the discussion that shows a consensus agaisnt creating list of editors on these pages?-- talk ) 20:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Can you direct me to the discussion that contains consensus for doing away with other status lists, for things like third opinion and other members interested in the DR process'?-- talk ) 20:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Look here, here, and here. All discussions confirm that the editors in the list are not special in any way. Also, see the instructions in the the volunteer instruction page which states "editors listed here have no special privileges or authority within DRN or Wikipedia". And please do not misrepresent what I said: I never said to get rid of the DRN list: it can be useful for a variety of functions. I only said that the DRN bot should not revert the edits of persons not on the list. --Noleander (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Again, I don't think volunteers are special. Its great that three discussions confirm that. Now...is there consensus for doing away with the volunteer list?-- talk ) 21:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC) @AMS: That is the second time you have misrepresented my proposal here. Please do not do it again. --Noleander (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC) I am sorry, but regardless of what you are claiming you are still asking for bot changes that allow non-volunteers not listed to mediate. That is the very essense of what you are proposing. The impact is that it makes the list completely useless and therefore is exactly the same as doing away with the list entirely as why would anyone on the list, stay on the list and why would anyone in the future add themselves for any other reason that a "sense of community". Simply put, you proposed changes makes the list useless. Please do not make demands of this editor that are unreasonable. I believe I understand fully what you are proposing. You want to allow all editors the ability to open DR/N cases and mediate. Is that not the case?-- talk ) 22:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC) I previously advocated for removal of the list actually. After that I noticed that the bot notified SZhang about cases needing assistance, and I was going to propose such notifications for every member of this list. I see no other harmless use of this list. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC) I can see a few purposes the list serves: (1) give parties a list of editors to contact to help with a case; (2) give editors a list of people to go to to disseminate DRN new or aks for input on a DRN RfC; (3) Help collect statistics on DRN activity (i.e. distinguish a party from a non-party). Those are not huge benefits, but eliminating the list would probably be a contentious discussion; therefore I am merely proposing to tweak the bot so it no longer reverts edits of uninvolved editors. --Noleander (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC) I also see these purposes, as well as the obscure "sense of community" argument voiced before, and all of these I consider harmful. That's why I said "I see no other harmless use" (emphasis added). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC) I saw that in the discussion. I disagree that it is a matter od a "sense of community". I believe it is an important seperation for the purposes of maintaining the DR/Ns resolution outcome.-- talk ) 21:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC) I don't really understand your position. If editors were nominated for volunteers and there would be some process of approval, the separation would make sense. Currently anyone can simply list himself, so any separation with this list is too weak to make sense IMO. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC) My preferences: the best option is to make bot leave the statuses alone (at all, only manual clerking); the second option is to make bot search links to "user" and "user talk" namespace and {{user}} templates between the case heading and case discussion and mark everyone else as volunteer. I see no room for more "tag teeming" then it is possible now: one may simply add himself to the list of volunteers and his edits will be interpreted as volunteer's (he'd be able to open the case). Even worse, currently even the editors explicitly mentioned as dispute parties are interpreted as volunteers if they are on list, so the current design is severely broken anyway. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC) That would work for me. --Noleander (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Please elaborate on severely broken. Basicly you want to just open the DR/N process to everyone without a list sign up designed to seperate the mediator from the participant in an orderly fasion. What you are proposing is that this process is broken because OF the list requirement. Then why don't you propose that we simply drop all bot operations entirely and open up the DR/N as a simple noticeboard like the rest. Do away with all restrictions, opening statements, requirements etc. and let anyone request help as the other boards do? Let people just have at it. No other board requires a list so why is there one here? Why are there so many requirements before filing a DR/N case? The reason was supposed to be for the best possible resolution that would have the best possible chance of sticking. I see the demise of DR/N by going this route. I say...do nothing as it is not broken and requires no fix and I see no reasoning given but to do away with the list of volunteers. Why bother with requirements at all? As i said why not open this up entirely then? Because this board was purposely set up to manage disputes, not just let everyone fight endlessly.-- talk ) 21:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC) "Severely broken" means that when I act as a party in the dispute the bot shouldn't note my comments as volunteer's input (as it did in this case). That said, I indeed think that unless there is explicit statement that only listed editors are volunteers, they share the same rights as all the other uninvolved editors, including right to open and/or close discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC) I would say, that before any action that removes the list, changes the bot operation and severaly changes the format of DR/N. A wider communuty discussion is required.-- talk ) 21:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Ummm ... that's what this talk page thread is. If we cannot reach consensus within this talk page, we can open an RfC and solicit wider input. For the sixth time: This proposal is to tweak the bot behavior, not to remove the DRN list. You are the only editor suggesting to delete the list (although DC has said he feels the list is not useful, there is no official proposal to delete it). --Noleander (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Ummm...I am not proposing the deletion of the list. I am saying that is the same outcome of the bot changes being suggested and to do what you are asking would effect the very essence of how DR/N works and would require a wider community consensus to change such an established noticeboard.-- talk ) 21:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC) That is not correct. The bot uses the DRN list for other functions besides reverting case openings. To take one small example: it uses the list to fill the "Last edited by a volunteer" columns in the DRN case summary table. The proposal would not alter those other functions. --Noleander (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Yes, I understand that the bot has other functions. However, the proposed changes would indeed have a major impact on the DR/N process. I believe such a major change would require the input of the general community now as this board has been established as a part of the dispute resolution process. Please elaborate on why you feel these changes would not alter the basis of how the DR/N process works by allowing unlisted/uninvolved editors from mediating.-- talk ) 22:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Again, you are wrong. The DRN process already lets non-listed editors mediate. Read the the volunteer instruction page. Could you please slow down a little bit and let other editors comment on the original proposal? --Noleander (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Yes, but what is broken...the bot's performance or the fact that that page does not state that one should add their name to the list itself before volunteering? Please note that the list makes it clear that the list effects what the bot does. Perhaps more clarifcation is needed on the page instaed of a major alteration in the bot? Are you asking me to stay out of this discussion? My input does not effect other editors ability to contribute to this discussion. I will stop for now and step back.-- talk ) 22:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC) I've opened an RfC on this question, below. This thread here has served its purpose, and I retract the suggestion made at the top. This thread is superseded by the RfC. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)