User talk:Steven Crossin/Archive 50

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Tea Leaf - Issue Five[edit]

Stop by for a tasty glass of wiki-iced tea at the Teahouse, today!

Hi! Welcome to the fifth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

  • Guest activity increased in July. Questions are up from an average of 36 per week in June to 43 per week in July, and guest profile creation has also increased. This is likely a result of the automatic invite experiments we started near the end of month, which seeks to lessen the burden on hosts and other volunteers who manually invite editors. During the last week of July, questions doubled in the Teahouse! (But don't let that deter you from inviting editors to the Teahouse, please, there are still lots of new editors who haven't found Teahouse yet.)
  • More Teahouse hosts than ever. We had 12 new hosts sign up to participate at the Teahouse! We now have 35 hosts volunteering at the Teahouse. Feel free to stop by and see them all here.
  • Phase two update: Host sprint. In August, the Teahouse team plans to improve the host experience by developing a simpler new-host creation process, a better way of surfacing active hosts, and a host lounge renovation. Take a look at the plan and weigh in here.
  • New Teahouse guest barnstar is awarded to first recipient: Charlie Inks. Using the Teahouse barnstar designed by Heatherawalls, hosts hajatvrc and Ryan Vesey created the new Teahouse Guest Barnstar. The first recipient is Charlie Inks, for her boldness in asking questions at the Teahouse. Check out the award in action here.
  • Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania! The Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania this past month, where editor retention and interface design was heavily discussed. Sarah and Jonathan presented the Teahouse during the Wikimedia Fellowships panel. Slides can be viewed here. A lunch was also held at Wikimania for Teahouse hosts.

As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 08:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corporals Killings[edit]

Hi Steven. I see your point about the refusal of editors to get involved, but one of them (User:Domer48) has expressed a willingness to do so, and perhaps the others will also. I do think you closed it and handed off to AE a little too quickly, and I would prefer to get a consensual resolution to this issue, so could you perhaps reopen it? Thanks.--FergusM1970 (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is just my opinion, but I think he handed it off at the right time. As it says at the top of WP:DRN: "If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction." We are working on making DRN a place where the simple issues get resolved quickly and the complex issues get handed off quickly. I just don't see this as a simple issue that can be quickly resolved. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough. What would you suggest is the way ahead, at this point?--FergusM1970 (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Steve suggested Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement in his closing comment, so I would start there. You might also find Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Guide to be useful. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Steven Crossin. You have new messages at TransporterMan's talk page.
Message added 02:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

The Signpost: 06 August 2012[edit]

My RfA[edit]

Thank you very much for participating in my RfA. It was great to see you there, and I appreciate the confidence you've expressed in my ability to <quote></unquote> "[not] destroy the Wiki". Take care. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me vs. DRN bot[edit]

Hello! Could you please tell me, where should I go to file a bug report about DRN bot ignoring me. Not that I seek friendship with bots , but I find the template useful to overview activity, and the fact that it doesn't count my edits at all makes this tasks a bit more time-consuming. BTW, may be you could say something on this topic — you said you tried investigating the issue with the bot master... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed now. Sorry about that! The issue had to do with your signature containing lowercase "user talk" instead of "User talk"; the bot should now recognize both versions. — Earwig talk 19:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry. I'm used to keeping everything technical lowercase. I do it automatically. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'The Fat Lady ain't singing'[edit]

Federal Detention Center, Oakdale is still live. I think XLR8TION isn't really reading talk pages or so. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC) It ain't over till the fat lady sings[reply]

The Signpost: 13 August 2012[edit]

Misha B[edit]

Could you kindly re-open the Dispute Resolution mechanism for the Misha B article @ Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 38 as the debate about neutrality has really flared up. Talk:Misha B...Zoebuggie☺whispers 22:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

or should I go to formal mediation...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relevent sections: Bias about bullying,Biased and promotional,Misha B Layout Structure,Why does the Misha article read like a magazine article?,Too much information and way too biased...Zoebuggie☺whispers 00:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV/N is probably your best bet here. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 00:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Nayef Bin Abdulaziz Regional Airport[edit]

My question comes from this diff: are we not supposed to close disputes as "closed" if DRN discussion didn't help? In this particular case the IP just eventually engaged in conversation on talk page, and the problem was solved there. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you're right. Didn't spot that they didn't edit DRN :-) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 02:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

Would you mind re-opening the RfC on the DRN talk page? I'd like to get more input from other editors. RfCs nominally last for 30 days. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 03:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC should run for at least a week, then it should be closed by an uninvolved admin. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 04:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption request, per IRC[edit]

Hi, remember me? I was told on IRC that you would be an excellent editor to adopt a newbie like myself. If you recall our short discussion, I have quite a bit of experience with wikis, but only smaller Wikia wikis and nothing quite so big as Wikipedia. In particular, I'm pretty ignorant of Wikipedia's policies, and to be honest, I'm a bit intimidated by the large number of essays and policy pages I've seen on here. I also feel as though I don't have anything to contribute; the wikis I've worked on before have not had nearly as professional standards for content that Wikipedia has. Anyway, please get back to me at your convenience. --Elduen (talk) 07:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, yes, I remember. Sorry about the delay in replying to you. Yes, I'd be happy to take you on. My adoption is rather rigorous, but will definitely help you learn the specifics of Wikipedia. I'm normally around on IRC (as you've seen) so that's the best way to get in touch with me. Normally I like to start with intros: Your first, or preferred name (I'm quite a personal person), main interests, and what you would like to do on Wikipedia. I'll go first. I'm Steve, my main interests are the TV show 24 and improving Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. On Wikipedia my aim is to have a system where disputes are resolved efficiently (we will touch base on this in the adoption :-)). What about you? (Btw, add this page to your watchlist - though I take it you're familiar with how to do that) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 02:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's what you meant when you first said "intros" on IRC. I thought you were referring to introductory information about Wikipedia itself. Well, my name is Jered, though I would much prefer to be called by my username, Elduen. My main interests are computers & Linux, firefighting, and online policy (copyright law, privacy & freedom, etc -- the sorts of things the EFF concerns themselves with). As for what I want to do on WP... well, most of my experience on those other wikis is with article writing and countervandalism, in that order. Since I'm not as good with images, policy drafting, or (in your example) dispute resolution, I think I'd like to focus on one or both of those two areas for the time being. And yes, I've added your talk to my watchlist. --Elduen (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, awesome -sorry about the delay in getting back to you - been flat out. The first thing I normally like people to do is read over the policy assignment, and in a paragraph, summarise what you learn from it, in your own words. We will go from there. Good to have you on board :-) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 04:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFC[edit]

Hi Steven! I tried to make a request for a message at User:MessageDeliveryBot but however the link is not loading. Currently WP:AFC is highly backloged with almost 1000 pending submissions! As you have access to EdwardBOT, can you please deliver this message to the participants ASAP? TheSpecialUser TSU 10:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


ummmm[edit]

Would you mind explaining to me where I can find the form for dispute resolution I thought I had it? please.Maryester (talk) 02:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's on that page - you should see a form there? Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 02:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I present you...[edit]

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Besides the implicit meaning of this barnstar, I award you this barnstar for awarding me a barnstar. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFD-like AFC log that you mentioned on IRC[edit]

Take a look at User:Legobot/AFC/2012-08-20. (I had originally tried transcluding the pages, but that stuck the page in a bunch of categories and was throwing template errors). Tbh, I don't see any advantage of a check-off system compared to our current system at {{AFC statistics}}, but thats really something that should be discussed at WT:WPAFC. LegoKontribsTalkM 04:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:HA Schult[edit]

You may now have a look at Talk:HA_Schult#Suggestions_for_improving_the_paragraphs. Wikiwiserick (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are still problems concerning the content of the Schult article. Wikiwiserick (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice boards & help desks[edit]

I was suitably impressed with your presentation at Wikimania. here is a discussion that may be of interest to you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there - thanks! I do hope that proposal at VPR gets some traction - I think its the first in a long line of required steps. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 03:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 August 2012[edit]

Wikipedia:Sanity checks[edit]

Hi there!

I've been following the Village Pump proposal to eliminate WP:WQA, and I've seen your proposal to create WP:SANITY as a replacement for WQA. If I'm not mistaken, it sounds a lot like what I wanted to do with a 3O-esque template to attract volunteers to mediate civility disputes on the talk page where they occur?

In any case, judging from your page summary ("When conduct issues arise on talk pages, it's sometimes helpful to have someone uninvolved give an opinion on the situation.") this sounds to me like a good solution for what should replace WQA, should the consensus be to do so. I'd be happy to help you develop your proposal if you're up for it.

Cheers! Zaldax (talk) 12:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I would. Kinda at a brick wall in terms of ideas - I know how it'd work in my head, but on paper, not sure. I don't think WQA should be redirected to sanity checks, just made historical with instructions to go to the WP:DR page - one listing there would be how to req a sanity check. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 12:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Master plan for DR[edit]

Hi. I'm glad you mentioned you were contemplating a master plan for DR. As you know, having a long-term vision can make it a lot easier to make decisions on questions that are facing us in the near term. I've given some thought to what a master plan could look like, and for what it's worth, it would look something like this (I've adopted the 3O concept that has been discussed in the past couple of days):

Nature of issue Progression Behavior Content
Dispute Informal
first stop		 Third Opinion - Conduct Third Opinion - Content
Semi-formal ANI DRN
Formal
(last resort)		 Arbitration committee Formal Mediation
Soliciting input RfC (User) RfC (content)

Legacy processes could be left alone, or subsumed as follows:

Maybe you'll find this useful. Or not :-) Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I like it, and I'd love to join 3O/Conduct in addition to my work at DRN. Electric Catfish 15:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's essentially my plan. Now just to implement it. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 23:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds ok except for RSN. RSN does a lot of work and has specialists. I think it's one worth keeping separate. If anything, Notability Noticeboard is the less useful one. 02:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Steven Crossin. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 07:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Just a poke to remind you of this. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I plan to do the first one of September if that's OK - so I can present completed results. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 06:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Third Opinion[edit]

It appears to be no longer possible to add 3O requests since the move that you requested. The Active Disagreements section has vanished, and clicking on the link near the bottom of the page to add a request gives an error message. However this page works OK. LittleBen (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DRN proposals[edit]

In WT:DRN#Dispute overview and opening statement can you also evaluate SGCM's proposal to rename "Dispute overview" to "Opening statements by USERNAME"? I believe this option could receive quite a lot of momentum. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Steven Crossin. You have new messages at Hasteur's talk page.
Message added 11:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

FYI: using template messages like that is kinda tacky... Hasteur (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it may be, but with a lot of volunteers and lots to do, I need every shortcut I can find :-) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 11:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DRN[edit]

  • Steve, thanks for pinging me about my recent inactivity there. I enjoy helping to resolve disputes there, but recently, NPP has been quite backlogged and I have been helping out there. Ayways, I'll try to be much more active there. Thanks again, Electric Catfish 13:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • I'm working on my new mantra------"Be Bold!". I AM studying the DRN noticeboard to see how others handle it. Cold feet I guess. Vacation soon, but I'll jump in when I return. Thanks. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steven, thanks for the prompt. I think I'll be going to DRN myself over a problem I have with another editor. Probably best to let that play out before I act as a volunteer? Regards --Flexdream (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DR/N ping[edit]

A number of us have recieved the talkpage request. I was happy to jump in, but then..volunteers seemed to stack up a bit. LOL! I withdrew from the mixed breed DR and am letting two others handle that. If you want to just let me know which dispute you feel needs the most immediate attention of a volutneer I will be happy to help out. Let me know.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This one needs attention the most, but have a look at the DRN case list for one you want to work on. :-) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 03:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't want to take a case already in use or of interest to someone that mught help more. The two on the other case are far more experianced and i can easily take whatever you know needs attention.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
^That one I linked needs the most attention - unattended for a while :-) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 03:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that this should be kicked back to the talkpage as not meeting basic criteria to file at DR/N. No talkpage discussion. [1]. However if we were to proceed, I would ask each party to post each claim being disputed and how it differes from sources. I would also ask that any source being used or quoted for use meet RS criteria so we can begin eliminating what does not work for our standards. Right now I am comfortable stating this as the review note and suggestion as how to move forward together first before feeling they neeed DR. What do you think?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 04:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was mediating the CBS Records discussion and I proposed a disambig page to resole the dispute. The filing editor agreed, so I put it up for review and waited for the other editor to agree. However, he didn't and now the dispute is getting a bit tense. Best, Electric Catfish 14:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The Signpost: 27 August 2012[edit]

WQA to 3O[edit]

Hey Steve! Will 3O be used (after WQA is shut down) for both content and conduct disputes, or will there be separate 3O pages for content and conduct disputes? Electric Catfish 18:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with user conduct at Wikipedia[edit]

I can see the arguments for why people think Wikiquette assistance might not be that helpful, but I think problem boils down to a lack of enforcement and instruction on how to deal with other editors here.

Some volunteers know how to keep things on track. We are supposed to focus on content, not editors. Yet at WQA and AN/I, things VERY rapidly degrade into all out attacks, the focus moves from the complaint to the complainer, or sometimes to other commenters. We need forum moderators who can remove off-topic rants, off-topic attacks, and are allowed to keep things on a tight focus at all of these forums. For Wikipedia to so often ignore its pillar of Civility is simply a sign of a deep problem within Wikipedia. We need to empower moderators at these boards and push people off them who are not focused on the tasks at hand. I have lost count with how often AN/I gets off track, the threats of admin action are over the top at times, but at least at Wikiquette, we can remind people that it is entirely voluntary. The lack of admin threats, and the promise of a fix often give people time to work out what exactly they are arguing about, and in many cases where I've volunteered, I've seen the people leave with a better understanding, and sometimes they've realized how they are wrong. As Nobody Ent said, sometimes just being able to have more people look at this is all it takes.

I don't think getting a third opinion is always going to be enough. Sometimes the give and take of an open discussion is what it takes. But none of these boards works well unless people can be held to a high standard of professionalism and civility. And that hasn't been enforced by our admins, which is why I would suggest a different class of people, who are not admins, whose sole job is moderation. -- Avanu (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've thought about WQA for many years, and I always had the perception that it doesn't work well. As a fellow, I did research on WQA (both in a survey and by looking at the actual numbers) and it strongly backed up what I thought - most of the time discussions at WQA end in mudslinging. It's because the focus is on conduct, and also because when a thread is opened at WQA, then one user has "reported" another - they immediatelhy jump on the defensive and often retalliate. This isn't something we can fix by imposing word counts and creating moderators. While I do acknowledge that there are times that WQA works, it tends to be the exception rather than the rule. We have a variety of conduct noticeboards that deal with pretty much everything else except civility - the thing to consider is that the underlying issue in many civility complaints is a content dispute that's got out of hand. Resolving the content issue often will address the conduct problem. The other thing to consider is that WQA is low traffic. One may think that this minimises the negative impact of WQA - if it's not used much then the fact it rarely works won't affect many people. I see it in a different light - if the process is used at most once a day, and a quarter of disputes are resolved successfully, then the process really isn't required and can be absorbed by a different process. The other thing to consider is that like all things on Wikipedia, we don't know what exactly will happen if WQA is closed. When I proposed the creation of the dispute resolution noticeboard in July last year, I didn't really know what impact it would have, or how exactly it would operate. A year later, it's one of the most active dispute resolution forums and has even made a few others redundant. Closing WQA may work well, and it may turn out to be a total trainwreck. We won't know if we don't try. However, I think the process is broken so badly that we should close it, we can always rethink down the road if necessary. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 23:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the alternative for people to work things out? -- Avanu (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working with a few people to rewrite the dispute resolution process page so there's more guidance on how to resolve one's dispute themselves - if they still need assistance after that then the 3O project will take whatever is left - their success rate is very high and there's a bunch of volunteers there. I'm confident that they will pick up any slack that's created by WQA's closure. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 23:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think almost everyone agrees that WQA doesn't work. Still, it's possible that WQA operates as a tarpit, giving our least civil editors a place to vent where it will not hurt other areas of the project. It's possible that that in itself is useful, or that closing WQA will just unleash that squabbling all over the project. I optimistically hope those are not our only options, but I've at least considered that to be the case. Ocaasi t | c 23:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assam dispute at DRN[edit]

I urge you to kindly reopen the case which filed today and archived immediately, so that i can put my case on.

Thanks ! भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 03:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the dispute has been discussed extensively at multiple areas - I encourage you to read the comments on the closed discussion and act on them. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 03:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with the text is that it tries to relate the current name "Assam" with one tribe or something belonging to that tribe while i said that word "Assam" was never used locally before and used by British to refer to land only not tribe in contrast user Chaipau claims that it was refered to kingdom of an tribe which he himself belongs to. In DRN, text was initially accepted when i have not even posted my case. The final conclusion is here, and third person of talkpage thinks this. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 04:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Can DRN go against findings of RSN. Your reply will be appreciated. Thanks ! भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 23:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Naturalistic pantheism". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 9 September 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 12:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assam[edit]

Thank you for your help in resolving the dispute on Assam#Etymology. Chaipau (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestions regarding the newsletter[edit]

Howdy. I was wondering if you had seen my suggestions regarding distribution of the newsletter?--Rockfang (talk) 10:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay - they're good - bit late now though :-) Szhang (WMF) (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding.--Rockfang (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted[edit]

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Naturalistic pantheism, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Naturalistic pantheism, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 12:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

About etymology of Assam[edit]

  • The precise etymology of "Assam" in unknown. -This is not true.
  • A Vedic kingdom Prag-Jyotisa existed in the past. Present area of Assam fall inside Pragjyotisa.
  • Please review ([2]).

Kurmaa (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 September 2012[edit]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)[edit]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Steven Crossin. You have new messages at Szhang (WMF)'s talk page.
Message added 07:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

The Tea Leaf - Issue Six[edit]

Hi! Welcome to the sixth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

  • Teahouse serves over 700 new editors in six months on Wikipedia! Since February 27, 741 new editors have participated at the Teahouse. The Q&A board and the guest intro pages are more active than ever.
A lovely little teahouse nestled in Germany from Wiki Loves Monuments
  • Automatic invites are doing the trick: 50% more new editors visiting each week. Ever since HostBot's automated invite trial phase began we've seen a boost in new editor participation. Automating a baseline set of invitations also allows Teahouse hosts to focus on serving hot cups of help to guests, instead of spending countless hours inviting.
  • Guests to the Teahouse continue to edit more & interact more with other community members than non-Teahouse guests according to six month metrics. Teahouse guests make more than twice the article edits and edit more talk pages than other new editors.
  • New host process implemented which encourages anyone to get started as a Teahouse host in a few easy steps. Stop by the hosts page and become a Teahouse host today!
  • Host lounge renovations nearing completion. Working closely with Teahouse hosts, we've made some major renovations to the Teahouse Host Lounge - the main hangout and resource space for hosts. Learn more about the improvements here.

As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. EdwardsBot (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC[edit]

Because of your interest in dispute resolution,, I am inviting you to comment on the following RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

This dispute has been going on for over ten years and there have been over 1,300,000 words posted on the article talk page (by comparison, all of the Harry Potter books together total 1,084,170 words). Over the years the dispute has been through multiple noticeboards, mediators, and even the Arbitration Committee without resolving the conflict, so a lot of wisdom is needed here. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 September 2012[edit]

Talkback Noleander[edit]

Hello, Steven Crossin. You have new messages at Noleander's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WQA closure[edit]

Congratulations on the WQA closure. That, along with the MedCab closure, marks a major simplification in the overall WP DR process. A next step, in my opinion, is to monitor 3O carefully and see if problems arise with "conduct only" disputes there: worse case, the 3O folks could feel overwhelmed and propose creating WQA again (with a different name, probably). Maybe it would be wisest to pro-actively create a 3O subprocess for those 3O cases that are deemed to be 100% conduct? That way such cases would get shuffled off to another page, and the 3O regulars wouldn't feel swamped? Not sure abou that: just brainstorming. --Noleander (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think that for the time being, keeping a careful eye on the situation at 3O would be wise. I think we shouldn't anticipate failure and thus shouldn't set up an alternative procedure yet, but be ready to act if necessary. My work for the next week will be setting up a RFC on implementing a universal request form for DR. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 00:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another possible near-term task would be to consider eliminating some of the noticeboards that could be easily absorbed (topic-wise) into the DRN. Candidates could include RSN, ORN, or POVN. There are pro and con arguments for absorbing them into DRN, but it is a possibility. But I'm a big fan of doing one thing at a time, so if you're planning on suggesting a single entry-point form for all DR processes, perhaps it is best to put-off proposals to eliminate RSN, ORN, and POVN for awhile until that form effort finishes. --Noleander (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 September 2012[edit]

Murder of Meredith Kercher[edit]

Dear Steven. I am posting this link in case you are not aware of the article. It is self-explanatory and your input would be valuable. Thanks. http://www.groundreport.com/Opinion/Wikipedia-Examines-its-Dispute-Resolution-Process-/2948088

Nigel Scott (not very Wiki literate) NigelPScott (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nigel. I was made aware of this a few days ago and am considering how to respond. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 23:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adopt-a-user[edit]

Hi Steven Zhang. I'm leaving you this message because you have previously been involved as an adopter with Wikipedia's Adopt-a-user program. A clean-up of this program is currently underway, and as part of the process I am trying to find out who is and isn't still interested in remaining an adopter.

If you would prefer not to be part of the adoption program anymore, you need do nothing; when the overhaul of the project is completed your name will be removed from the list of active adopters. However, if you have current adoptees, an active adoption school or an interest in adopting in the near future, then please let us know by signing here.

If you want to remain in the project and can currently take on more adoptees, there is a serious backlog at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user; it would be enormously helpful if you could take on one or two of the users there. Please do keep an eye on the project for upcoming changes, we could use your opinions and your help! Yunshui 雲‍水 09:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steven Crossin. Thanks for agreeing to stay on at Adopt-a-user. I've recently updated the list of adopters and I have included you, per your original comments on that page and your comments at User:Yunshui/Overhaul/Adopters staying on. You can see your new profile at the list of adopters. Why not update your profile with an image and maybe have another look at your description? You can also include a list of any adoptees you currently have. If you are also willing to mentor problematic users, possibly as part of a conditional unblock, please include "mentorship=yes" in your profile. Thanks again for all your help. WormTT(talk) 13:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution[edit]

Hello. You deleted my dispute resolution request about Minorities in Greece asking to discuss the issue in the talk page and for filling in a table. If you follow the link I provide, you should see that the disputing party holds its opinion as of today and we have extensively discussed in the past, without any solution. Which table are you referring to? Filanca (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do still think that you both should try working it out on the talk page - see if you can compromise a little and try working together. If there's no hope of compromise, then dispute resolution is a little pointless, because they are minimum requirements to have any success to a dispute. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 20:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you! That was a pleasant surprise, I really appreciate it.--SGCM (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :-) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 11:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject membership[edit]

Would it be alright, if I removed my moniker from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration's membership? GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you do that, and nothing else, I think that'd be fine. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 11:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking adoption[edit]

Hi Steven. I recently read about the adoption program, and saw your name among the list of adopters. I'm wondering if you would consider taking me on. I joined Wikipedia two or three weeks ago, and am trying to get over the learning curve as quickly as I can so that I can make some more substantial contributions in my main areas of interest. I've already created one short article, and am currently working on constructing a portal for the international relations project. But I'm finding Wikipedia to be pretty labyrinthine, and it would be nice to have someone I can count on to help with the many questions that are coming up along the way. I'm happy to tell you more about myself and my interests, if that will help you decide. Cheers. Keihatsu (talk) 09:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'd be happy to - I haven't taken on anyone for a while, so it'd be nice to show you the ropes. There is one condition - that you stick to it - no dropouts :-) - but apart from that I'm pretty easy going. I take it you've read my userpage so you know all about me, but tell me a bit about yourself - your first name, what attracted you to start editing Wikipedia, and what you're interested in editing. After that, the first step is normally to read over the Policies lesson and write a short paragraph in your own words about what you learned. I find it summarizes many of the most important policies, and is the best place to start, and we can go from there. I maintain that there is no such thing as a stupid question, so feel free to ask. And make sure you add this page to your watchlist. :-) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 12:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. I don't intend to drop out, but it might take me a few weeks to make it through your training program. My username is Keihatsu, which is very close to the Japanese translation of my name. I have a pretty unique first name, and am soon going to be working for an employer whose institutional culture may not encourage staff to express opinions in public fora without thorough vetting. So...it's probably best just to call me by my username for now, if that's alright. I've been using Wikipedia for years, and would occasionally make a few edits when I encountered errors. I have a couple months now where I will have some more time, and decided to take the opportunity to learn as much as I can. I imagine that once I've overcome the learning curve, participating will become more natural and rewarding. I mainly hope to write articles and introduce new research to existing ones. My interests are pretty varied. My undergraduate major was in history, with regional concentrations in Chinese and Canadian history. A few years ago I moved to the U.S. for love and grad school, and did my masters in international security policy. I'd like to contribute to the international relations project, as well as topics related to human rights, philosophy, religion, education, history, etc. I'm also an amateur cellist and photographer, and enjoy travelling, hiking, kayaking, meditating, and learning new things. Sometimes I write in a hybridized American and Canadian English, but will try to be consistent when I'm editing articles. I'll take closer look at the policy document when I have more time, and will report back. Thanks! Keihatsu (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've looked through the policies document you compiled. I had already started to learn some of the basics — like adding citations, reflists, images, interlanguage links, infoboxes, and section breaks — but a lot of the more technical information (such as that found in the Wiki markups page) was new to me. I'll probably have to bookmark the page to remember how to do everything. The policies seem pretty clear at this point, though there are sure to be some nuances that come out as I edit more. Basically, write as though you're writing an encyclopedia, and try to cover notable topics in a neutral, thorough, and accessible way by summarizing relevant information found in secondary and tertiary sources. Does that sound about right? Keihatsu (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute[edit]

Hi, I'm hoping you may be kind enough to look at the revert that was done on New York Agreement. It seems that Davidelit reverted the article because he does not like me, no other reason given for reverting my contribution on an article he has never edited before. I think editing or reverting documents should be based on content and not personality issues. I don't want to get involved or waste my time with Wiki culture again - eight years ago Wik accused me of POV and wasted months of people's time. The New York Agreement was about the administration of the territory, it was an agreement with the United Nations approved in General Assembly 1752 (XVII). And the Dutch had been asking for the UN to administrate the territory since 1961. Those are facts, those are supported by the US State Dept records, by the UN records, and by the newspapers.Daeron (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • P.S. the theory that the UN was "polarized" between "Third World countries, which supported Indonesia" and "Western countries, which supported the Netherlands" was not supported in the Wiki article with citations; and the theory conflicts with the facts; Senegal told the UN it opposed the deal, the abstainers were Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Dahomey, France, Gabon, Haiti, etc. see 124-128 of the 1962 UN Yearbook.
    • Please note - the UN document states the issue was about the "political future" - it was not deciding the political status that was still in dispute. The 'New York Agreement' was a compromise between Indonesia saying it held sovereignty and the Netherlands saying since the 1950s the Papuans had a right of self-determination; under the settlement the colony would become a UN territory to then be administrated by Indonesia pending the results of an act of self-determination (by 1969). -- The UN General Assembly does not have power to declare sovereignty matters, only its International Court of Justice can make declarations and only if all parties submit to it, sovereignty could only be decided by the people (the act of self-determination at a future date promised in the agreement).Daeron (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 September 2012[edit]

WP:SNOW[edit]

I bring this to your attention. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/caralampio2

Cheers, Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 23:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Looks more like a WP: NOTNOW to me. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, already been handled. You're right, it was notnow, I thought snow was a better subject ^_^ Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 09:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 October 2012[edit]

DRN data[edit]

Hi Steven, I made some comments at the RFA on reforming WP:DR. I'm all in favour of stream lining etc but I see a major issue with the current volunteer system and their (lack) of training. Not everyone is as skilled as you are in this area. My single time as an end-user of DRN has left me shocked at the human elements in its system. I'm wondering since we have this drive to streamline all WP:DR through DRN do we have raw data on how well DRN is actually doing. How many disputes failing to be resolved? How many that escalate? How many (if any) are made worse (ANi certainly makes some disputes worse)? Streamlining is definitely a good in terms of this site's software and general ordering of its cyberspace, but as far as I can see the problem is in fact in the meatspace. People who intervene in disputes need to be able to help - that's why both MedCom's process for selection and RFA exist. Are there any plans to oversee the DRN volunteers and make them as accountable as sysops are? Are there guidelines for them to follow when intervening or is it adhoc? Is there any training/advice open to them when they volunteer (i.e if they're not sysops etc)? Are there plans to widen the pool of volunteers to prevent the appearance of cliquishness?--Cailil talk 11:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'll comment on this in the morning - it's late here and I want to give a thought out response. Regards, Szhang (WMF) (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem Steven and apologies for the barrage of questions - there's no deadline with this (but I am very interested to see these answered). My concerns rest on my work at WP:AE, at the other end of the WP:DR ladder. DRN needs to help ppl and protect the project as its primary goal. If we're going to scrap years of process by deleting other fora, DRN needs to doing its job better than all the others did their's - otherwise the proposals run the risk of just being software development in a vacuum--Cailil talk 11:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. The lack of training of volunteers I think isn't an enormous issue compared to the past - historically editors would jump into the deep end at forums like MedCab where a one-to-many relationship existed, and if the new volunteer stuffed up, there was no-one to fall back on. With DRN, a many-to-many relationship exists, so if a volunteer missteps, more experienced volunteers exist to lend a hand. We've also created a volunteer how-to manual to guide new volunteers. I think creating a vetting process for DRN would be unwise. The largest problem with dispute resolution at present is the shortage of volunteers. New volunteers become experienced over time - when I started in 2008 I had no idea either - I spent hours reading policy, and still refer back to it now. I think that the amount of times volunteers misstep versus the amount they actually resolve disputes is low enough that formalising selection for DRN volunteers is unnecessary. The data for DRN at present is located at this page. Hope that helps. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 00:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes as above I am involved in a thread on DRN (as I said at the top of my post). Part of the problem Steven is how my criticism of the board & its volunteer processes has been met (ie defensiveness and an apparent inability to say "whoops").
Guy's made 3 posts (that I'm aware of) of the above which IMHO is covered by the advice at WP:DTR. I do see that Guy is working in good faith but good intentions are not enough. Indeed one of the above such posts is to the RFC on reforming DRN. This kind of action attempts to prejudice my comments there rather than see where I'm coming from. That is a rather odd example to be setting for volunteers who are supposed to be helping resolve disputes.
All that said my experience at DRN is a side issue. I'm more concerned that this is the run of the mill attitude being taken, which would be illustrative of system failure at the board. My questions are about the future plans for DRN, the data behind the move to consolidate all disputes through it, and how steps will be taken to improve DRN's function. Fora here are only as good as the ppl staffing them, & if the ppl aren't open to fair criticism or take on the appearance of a cabal then it becomes a one-way-street to MFD, and nobody wants that for DRN. This is not a personal issue between myself and Guy - this is about the human side of DRN--Cailil talk 14:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made three completely neutral comments in the three places where you suddenly decided to get involved in improving DRN after being involved in an ongoing DRN dispute. Far from being "attempts to prejudice [your] comments there" they are purely informational. Is there some reason why you wish to hide the possibility that you might have a conflict of interest concerning your comments about dispute resolution and dispute resolution volunteers?
Please consider the possibility that what you are depicting as "defensiveness and an apparent inability to say 'whoops'" is instead simply looking at your criticisms and finding them to be without merit. I have a pretty good working relationship with the other DRN volunteers, and they all know that I welcome and actively seek out criticism and corrections.
This is the wrong place to criticize my work as a DRN volunteer. Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard is the right place. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've offered to withdraw from the DRN thread as Guy sees my action here and at the RFC as criticizing him. I'm also happy to have my conduct examined by a sysop (I'm also happy with Guy's agreement to this as a misunderstanding). I'll restate here that no I am not having a go at Guy. I see how he took the approach he did and I see he is/was acting in good faith. I just think the process could/should be improved. We're all here to work together and improve the site. And improving DRN and the other dispute mechanisms is all I'm after here--Cailil talk 21:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My response to the DR situation can be found here. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 00:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Steven for hitting all the targets so to speak. I'm happy this is resolved with the exception of Amadscientist's last remarks to me (which really pushed the boat out)[3]. I'd like these to be addressed, and as I said at the talk page I'm happy to ask a sysop if you'd prefer not to do it.
I'm sorry for the whole mess. I think Guy mistook my comments about what I see as a failing in the process/system of the board as a criticism of him personally. Amadscientist then defended him, rather ardently.
I do disagree about DRN volunteers not needing training/oversight. I believe they shouldn't get into their personal opinions on content. Basically Steven if everyone handled matters they way you did the board would work extremely well. Your post accurately reflects policy and addresses the dispute without getting into your subjective response. Perhaps my opinion of teh board was skewed because I know how well you handle these things and expect too much of all volunteers staffing it--Cailil talk 00:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that not all volunteers are as experienced as others (frankly though, you give me too much credit) and perhaps some oversight would be beneficial, but I think I do that myself rather informally at this stage. I have no power to enforce anything - I'm just a volunteer as well, and have been quite focused on reform so things like overseeing processes is something I've had little time for, but may have some benefit. But formal selection? I think this would make it too similar to MedCom. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 01:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well formal selection ala MedCom/RFA might not work but maybe apprenticeship/probation might help. You could pair up veterns with newbies and when the veterns give the thumbs up, or after 6 months/X amount of cases they become veterns themselves. Maybe that's a bit Jedi-ish but you could also do it informally without the hierarchy. Also maybe a 3-5 point code of conduct for volunteers on how to stay away from subjective responses?--Cailil talk 01:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Talk page stalker) FWIW I frequently have to fight my will to propose revival of MedCab in some updated form, so that there could be a playground for MedCom candidates and some more careful and concise DR process, but currently DR suffers from enormous amount of fragmentation (with myriad of noticeboards, each having its own process and local assumptions on the dark areas of policies), so probably collecting all of the second stage content dispute resolution should be performed before any major changes in DRN (or [re]introduction of informal mediation) could take place. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But MedCab suffers from a one-to-many relationship, which causes volunteer burnout in a huge way. If the mediation lasts for six months, then it's only been successful because that one person stayed on for that six months. For me, that's my kinda thing, but it's not for everyone. I think that going forward, if a dispute has been on DRN for too long, we subpage it and continue to work on resolving the dispute there, but it remains on the case status table - but this would happen after the dispute has already been attended to by volunteers, and when referral to MedCom is not appropriate/necessary. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 09:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steven, this is quite a dramatic change in the way DRN works, and I would definitely support this. But this would require an RfC and quite a lot of technical changes to happen. BTW, didn't we already gather rough consensus on subpaging everything on DRN? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think sub paging everything is unwise, because it reduces the amount of visibility that a new case once it gets filed at DRN. But if a dispute is still open after say 7 days, and things are going well, there's no need to send it to MedCom, but it also clogs up the DRN page. By this stage, there is likely a few volunteers working on the thread, so moving it to a subpage then isn't a problem - but doing it initially would be unwise. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 10:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sub-paging thing might help you guys from the structural POV but again from my perspective the problems are in meat-space not cyberspace. As long as a board/wikiproject has semi-official positions separated from the rest of the community (DRN's cadre of volunteers falls into that) those who fill them will need to behave in accordance with policy and perhaps even be accountable for errors (at least to the degree of taking the WP:Trout.
    Any time protection of the clique is put ahead of policy, the human system will fail. Ppl who criticize the board or volunteers should not be made into punching-bags, as happened with Amadscientist's (continued) escalation of the matter with me (which had nothing to do with him). Volunteers at the board need to have a resolutory mind set, and need to be guided as to how best to develop it--Cailil talk 12:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quantitative and qualitative[edit]

Thanks again for the data[4] Steven. BTW the improvements in reaction time etc are impressive. I'd like to ask a few things: has there been an analysis of what kinds of disputes are/were failing? Is there a qualitative analysis of the resolution or are you focussed on a quantitative model? Is there any data on what happened to the failing disputes - did they blow over, escalate (to ANi, RFC ArbCom, AE) or just continue.
These are purely academic questions, I know but I'm interested as to how the WMF sees dispute resolution and have been doing a lit review on various research on WP's systems and their effects on editor conflict and retention--Cailil talk 14:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the data at the moment has been quantitative. I'm working on gathering some qualitative data at present, but I think I'm going to work from the top down - look at disputes that reached MedCom and backtrack to see where things went wrong. Then we can identify areas from improvement and move forward, but this will be something I likely do once my fellowship has ended. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 03:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Steven. Yeah I can see that what I'm talking about would take a long time. BTW some of the papers on resolving disputes have deal with using visualization tools to identify disputes and tease them out - the paper in my lit review 'Us vs. Them: Understanding Social Dynamics in Wikipedia with Revert Graph Visualizations' goes into it with some depth - thought it might be of use to you-Cailil talk 21:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc/Reforming dispute resolution[edit]

I have a proposal in mind, concerning who should/shouldn't be involved in attempting to resolve a dispute. However, I can't present it, as it might lead to my indef-ban :( GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can always send it in an email to me if you like. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 22:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have Wiki-email. TBH, I believe Wiki-email should be abolished. Besides, my proposal has an 'exclusionary' clause, which wouldn't sit well with some editors. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I personally find email very helpful. Each to their own. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 22:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Talk page stalker) Sorry, you have a proposal you want to announce but are not going to make? Why bother starting this section then? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DR improvement[edit]

You still active on this? Please shoot me an e-mail when you have time for a lengthy chat on the subject.--Tznkai (talk) 13:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon on back to the Teahouse![edit]

It's easier than ever to be a Host at the Teahouse
Hi Steven Crossin! The Teahouse has recently went through some design changes in order to improve it's usability for new editors and for our Hosts. As a former Host, we'd love to see you back. A few changes have taken place about hosting:
  • A new and improved Host Lounge which features calls to action and resources.
  • A simplified Host sign up process. It just takes a few simple steps to add your new profile to our new Host profile page.
  • Concerned about how much time you have to contribute? Don't be. With our new automated Host check in system Hosts can feel less pressure to participate outside of their volunteer capacity - only participate when you want.
  • Teahouse invitations are currently automated! We encourage you to keep inviting, but, there is no pressure or quotas as HostBot does the task for the you.

I hope you'll come back and join us, your skills at making new editors feel welcome and appreciated are invaluable to the Teahouse, and the Wikipedia community. See you there! EdwardsBot (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 October 2012[edit]

B&I topic-ban[edit]

Howdy Steven. Just wondering, if you & Dan would consider lifting or atleast modifying my community ban. There's alot of gnome corrections needed on those articles. GoodDay (talk) 06:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been unwell. Let me review a few things and I'll get back to you. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 07:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you're feeling better. PS: There's no urgency, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me recent edits that you've been making? I'd need to justify it. "GoodDay has been making good edits to xyz articles, etc". Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 22:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Village pump proposals SNOW closure[edit]

Hello. I wanted to bring to your attention a concern I had with your closure of the bureaucrats rights proposal. While the main proposal obviously qualified for SNOW closure, I had started an alternate proposal that had clearly not reached consensus. This was closed along with the other proposal. Could you review your actions on this close? Tazerdadog (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 October 2012[edit]

Prem Rawat Dispute Resolution[edit]

Hi I know you have helped with the Prem Rawat article in the past. I wonder if you could you comment here where I have invited discussion on Momento's recent removal of the following sourced sentence (in bold) from the Prem Rawat article?

  • In January 1979 the Los Angeles Times reported that Rawat was maintaining his Malibu following despite a rising mistrust of cults.[1] Bob Mishler and Robert Hand, a former vice president of the movement, complained that money was increasingly diverted to Rawat's personal use,[2] warning that a situation like the recent Jonestown incident could occur with the followers of Rawat.[3] Mishler complained that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill, but his charges found little support and did not affect the progress of the Mission.[2]

Thanks! PatW (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative to dispute resolution[edit]

As (I believe) you point out in your DR project page, the major problem about resolving differing views on the content of an article is a discouragingly small number of participants (of which some may be inexperienced in content or conduct); this does not pertain only to a formally invoked DR, but even more to an attempted discussion at the article talk page.

I have made only a few contributions to en.wiki articles, but have attempted considerably more discussions at talk pages (and never invoked a DR procedure or have been involved in one). Discouraged by lack of response (and occasional misconduct of other editors), I am more inclined to withdraw from en.wiki than to revert or modify edits of other authors without reasonable consent.

However, if a dissatisfied contributor (like me) were able to indicate at the article page that significantly differing views had been presented at the talk page...

Therefore, if your primary concern is not limited to realization of the particular DR project, you may choose to consider such an alternative to DR process itself.--Ilevanat (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I do note that there are currently templates that can be put on articles like {{POVdispute}}, but I think we need to also consider what our readers see. They're mostly just there to get information on the article, not so much to know the behind-the-scenes that's going on with wiki-disputes. But I do agree that more visibility would always be ideal. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 22:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DRN[edit]

Thank you for the notification. I'll do my best to assist the Windows 8 and High-fructose corn syrup disputes. Cheers.--SGCM (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks :-) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 08:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

double post[edit]

looks like you posted twice at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Statement_by_Steven_Zhang Nobody Ent 01:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thnx, fixed. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 02:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion article titles RfC[edit]

Hi Steven, please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles#Closing this RfC. Kaldari (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Rawat[edit]

Hi Steven, you closed the DRN page saying you were going to deal with it on the Talk Page. I'm a bit confused a) why you closed the discussion when people were coming there from Wales' page and b) what exactly you are doing to 'deal with it' on the Talk Page. Things move so fast on that article. Momento reverted Wnt's edit and this was not apparent to the uninvolved editors arriving from Wale's page or wherever. Since you removed my DRN, my original explanation as to the nature of the dispute was no longer available, so I thought it reasonable to re-state that on the latest thread. My intention was, as per Guy Macon's request to leave the discussion to uninvolved editors but Rainer is continuing to try to influence the debate. Perhaps you could recommend that involved editors take a Wikibreak. I think it would potentially be a good way forward. Thanks. PatW (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can recommend that the editors involved take a wikibreak, but this recommendation was already made and I am not sure if it has been successful. I have another idea, however. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 03:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on the talk page. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 08:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think I should carry on arguing with Rumiton and Momento, both of whom are now adding to discussion? I'm out of my depth. PatW (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Steven
Can you made head or tail out of this message on my talk page?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. It's true that we are discussing the Prem Rawat dispute off-wiki, but there's no conspiracy going on here. I'm just trying to determine the best way to resolve this dispute, but the comments by Momento are disappointing, and I decline to mediate this dispute any further. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 11:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You always do, Steven. You are famous for doing that. But I digress. I have never heard of this Prem Rawat thing. But it just occurred to me that Momento called me "CL". I think he mean to contact User:CL. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rawat[edit]

As you know I've really tried to take a Wikibreak with respect to Guy's and now your suggestions but I'm finding it hard to stand by without clarifying something for Ken Arromdee. Ken can no doubt research Mishler for himself but User:Rumiton's characterisation of Mishler appears to me to be incomplete and misleading so, 24 hours ago, I wrote the following to him on his Talk Page which he has ignored.
  • "I would ask that, since you insist on continuing to argue on the Talk Page, you correct the false impression you have given. Some sources may imply Mishler was "removed" but others say Mishler says he 'resigned'. The implication is that he may have been "asked to resign" but you need to be honest about what the sources say. Scholar Maeve Price (1979) says "Maharaj Ji resented the advice given to him by his chief subordinate and dismissed him when a clash of wills occurred.... Maharaj Ji (aka Rawat) denied that he had sacked his international director but claimed he had changed his 'service' (p. 34). In fact the said official has dropped out of the mission altogether." I also think you should qualify your "They were only disgruntled employees" remark, by fully explaining that Mishler was the President of the Divine Light Mission in the US. He inaugurated it for Rawat whose position was a Minister of the 'Church'. Hand was vice-president according to sources. Your description leaves the interpretation open that they were just employees - which was not the case. Also you suggest that the "disgruntled" was just on their part. Maeve Price says otherwise." -

So do you think Rainer and I should rejoin the debate or what? I am reluctant to do so out of respect for my opponent (Rainer) in argument's honesty in also withdrawing. Please can you and Guy (since you seem to be doing something behind the scenes about this) advise? I started this debate and I feel some responsibility that I am leaving it in capable hands and that my withdrawal is not taken advantage of to present a one-sided view to newcomers. Thanks you. PatW (talk) 10:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe I ever said "They were only disgruntled employees." You are putting words in my mouth to suit your purposes, and this is not conducive to the civil discussion which we are trying to start on the talk page. Rumiton (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC) And by the way, letting 24 hours go by in a busy life without attending to a comment does not constitute "ignoring" it. Just so's you know. Rumiton (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At this stage, I am discussing ways that we can resolve this dispute, long term - not just a temporary bandaid. This may take a few days to come up with a plan forward. Thanks for your patience. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 22:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Steven, I see you are e-mailing another editor about this subject. This article has long suffered from a battleground atmosphere created in the past almost entirely by a single hostile editor, one who is now indefinitely banned himself. His MO was to go via e-mail behind the scenes to get editors whose POV he disagreed with banned, while speaking with his own side in a pleasing, almost affectionate way. I did not object to his actions at the time, but tried to argue the Prem Rawat case on its merits, which I am still trying to do now. I also played no part in his Arbitration case, which you can read here I hope what you have in mind is a constructive solution, which does not involve banning any currently involved editors yet again. It would be a great shame to have to go through all that distress once more, and experience has shown it only seems to make things worse. Apart from that, the recent DR produced some very good (I think) suggestions for how to resolve the current impasse, but there is no one left to discuss them. We definitely need to at least examine these recommendations before going to any other boards. I have never seen a Wikipedia article and its talk page effectively shut down like this while two editors ponder their next move. I hope it doesn't last long. Rumiton (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rumiton. The reason that the discussion on how to proceed with the Prem Rawat dispute is being discussed off-wiki is because this is no ordinary dispute. It's been at Arbitration twice, formal mediation six times, informal mediation at least twice, DRN a few times, and AE countless times. It's an area that is also under general sanctions. For this reason, I've engaged in discussion with several editors, including fellow DR volunteers, to find out what the best way forward is. I don't know what that will be at this stage, but I think the most important thing is stability of the article. The protection on the article is just there to keep it stable for the time being. I imagine this won't take more than a day. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 03:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DS or WP:AC/DS?[edit]

Did you really mean to link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting?[5] Perhaps you meant Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions? :) --Guy Macon (talk) 08:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, don't I look like an idiot? I'll fix that, thanks so much. We have to talk over the next day or two about the Prem Rawat page. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 09:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS question[edit]

Sarah and Steven: Both of you had some involvement with 2011121910019394. A question arose at Wikipedia:OTRS_noticeboard#File:Wpcplogo.jpg. Would you be so kind as to make sure my answer is correct? I don't know whether there was an intention to freely license it and that got lost in the discussion of why it didn't show up on Facebook, or if it was licensed and I missed it, or if it simply is intended to remain as a non-free logo.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Yep, you're right. The ticket had no mention of licensing the image, so it stays as non-free unless another ticket is submitted. I'd personally favour removal of the OTRS template from the description page, it only confuses and serves no meaningful purpose. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 21:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds sensible, I'll remove it. I agree, it is confusing.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Glad I could be of help. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 22:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 October 2012[edit]

Breakroom[edit]

If you can spare the time, take a look at the current proposal. Please make a few suggestions if you could, I would love your input, even if you think its impossible. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, flat out at present :( Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 11:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JClemens no confidence !vote[edit]

Dang, I wish our clocks were closer together. Would you take a look at what I've written tldr-ishly at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests#Those_who_hold_the_opposite_view? You said in your !vote on the other side that he has failed to admit or correct his mistake and, worse, failed to apologize for it, whereas I think that he has admitted it and corrected it and that while an apology would be nice that it wasn't necessary in light of the admission and correction. But I think that what you may consider to be his mistake isn't what I consider to be his mistake. Or am I mistaken? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about it for some time (sorry about the delay) but what really bothered me was this thread he started on his talk page. Didn't show good form for me, and tipped me over the edge in terms of my no-confidence. To me, it seemed like he was justifying what he did by showing that other people supported him. And that may be the case. But it's not the way to act when you're under fire, imo. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 10:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Malibu Guru Maintains Following Despite Rising Mistrust of Cults" Mark Foster, Los Angeles Times 12 January 1979 p. 3
  2. ^ a b Melton (1986), p. 141–2
  3. ^ Brown, Chip, Parents Versus Cult: Frustration, Kidnapping, Tears; Who Became Kidnappers to Rescue Daughter From Her Guru, The Washington Post, 15 February 1982
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steven_Crossin/Archive_50&oldid=1139337601"