User talk:Steven Crossin

Template:Useronline

User Page User Talk Contribs E-mail Subpages Adoption Awards Mediation Steve's Status: Offline (verify) 4:36 pm, 10 October 2024 AEST Talk Archives Stuff to do

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 01:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

		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]

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. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 04:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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]

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):

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

• WP:POVN -> DRN
• WP:RSN -> DRN
• WP:RSN -> DRN
• WP:WQA -> Third Opinion - Conduct
• Left alone: BLP noticeboard, Copyright noticeboard, Notability noticeboard, Fringe theories noticeboard

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)

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]

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]

• Problem kindly fixed by User:Czarkoff.   LittleBen (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

• 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

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

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.

• 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]