User talk:SCrossin (WMF)

Title	Status	Created	Last volunteer edit
Wolf	Closed	Nagging Prawn (t)	29 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 hours
Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic	In Progress	Randomstaplers (t)	25 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 hours	Randomstaplers (t)	8 hours
Double-slit experiment	Closed	Johnjbarton (t)	8 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	19 hours
List of musicals filmed live on stage	Closed	Wolfdog (t)	6 days, 22 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	9 hours
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Zsa Zsa Gabor	New	PromQueenCarrie (t)	5 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	10 hours	Last1in (t)	32 minutes
Genocides in history (before World War I)	New	Jonathan f1 (t)	18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	9 hours	Cdjp1 (t)	43 minutes

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 14:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours

Just some feedback that I would have participated in this, but I have no idea how to login to IRC. Formerip (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I get the message "Cannot join channel (+r) - you need to be identified with services". Formerip (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Conclusions of survey incomplete

Omitted from your recommendations are two major needs for improvement: better fact finding, and restriction of ArbCom to ruling on the case presented, rather than broadening it to fit their preconceptions and thereupon listening to themselves alone. Brews ohare (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. My recommendations in the survey are exactly that - my recommendations. I reviewed the results of the survey as well as the text responses, and these ideas were not the resounding message I received from the community. I appreciate that others may have different ideas for reforming dispute resolution, but in my perspective the best way to go about it is by starting at the bottom, and working up. The other day I read about an oncologist that worked on last-stage cancer patients, who had a very low success rate. He said that even though he'd get less clients as a result, he'd much rather the screening process be improved so more cancers were caught early. It's a similar scenario here. I'd much rather make the earlier stages of dispute resolution more effective, so disputes can be resolved earlier and don't have to go all the way to ArbCom. Eventually ArbCom is something I'll take a look at - likely as a volunteer, but for now my work is focused on the earlier stages - that's the feedback I got from the survey, so that's my priority. Regards, Szhang (WMF) (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I present you (again)...

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Besides the implicit meaning of this barnstar and the barnstar before this barnstar, I award you this additional barnstar for awarding me a barnstar. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Nit-picky copyedits!

Some of these are stylistic. I apologize. Grammar and syntax ones are: 3, 4, 5, 6.

1. "Following the founding" → "After the founding" (prosody, alliteration sucks)
2. "and that there are too many resolution processes and not enough forum volunteers" → "and the number of understaffed resolution processes available" (or something like that; the "and that there" is bugging me)
3. "Some respondents haven’t volunteered to help run the forum due to the unpleasantness of disputes, the prolonged nature of dispute resolution, or poor past experiences or a lack of knowledge of how disputes can be resolved." → ", or" should be moved to end, rmv "or" before "poor past experience"
4. " We also set some goals – to decrease" → this really should be a colon, rmv "to" before verbs. Otherwise, at first glance it appears that you're listing reasons for setting goals until you see it's a list of the goals, and the change would make it more punchy and call-to-action-y.
5. " and to decrease the resolution timeframe by at least 19%, to seven days." → place "seven days" in parens eg "(seven days)" to avoid weird comma
6. " an average of 2.85 volunteers to a thread up from 1.5 and a success rate of over 64%." → place "up from 1.5" in parens, comma before "and" if using serial comma
7. "Discussion often is retrospective as opposed to being prospective, " → "Discussion often is retrospective as opposed to being prospective." "Instead of" as opposed to/instead of "as opposed to". I'm kidding, but that sentence was worth it.
8. " and the alteration of others being discussed," → MedCab wasn't really in the "others" list, since you're mostly mentioning noticeboards in this para. Maybe "other forums"?
9. "we're on the way - but there's still a long way to go." → way too many ways. "On the way" and "a long way to go" might seem a slightly poetic juxtaposition, but they're cliches so this is best to avoid. Maybe "we're on the right path".
10. " It would keep discussion structured, so volunteers aren't put off by massive walls of text, and would help keep discussions on track." → "structured discussion" and "on track discussion" are redundant.
11. "community through an RFC, to work toward" → either a comma before "through" or no comma after "RFC". (edit: This is partly stylistic. Ignore me :-p )
12. "I envision a dispute resolution system that is efficient and effective, and has an abundance of volunteers." → "and which has" (This is hugely stylistic, but this is the vision section, so it serves to sound a little more ebullient in prose.)

Also: I can't tell if you're using the serial comma or not. It switches back and forth. --Xavexgoem (talk) 06:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC on DR

Hello! I have a big question about Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Reforming dispute resolution: why do you do it? The first question is about something that is already implemented, and the second one doesn't provide enough context. May be the RfC could be made more focused? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry in the delay for getting back to you. At the moment, the first point is in place for DRN - not across the board, and that's what I envision. The second question is indeed vague, but this RFC is something I'll be drafting over the coming week. Any ideas you have would be appreciated. Regards, Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Newsletter feedback

[1]. Cheers Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Reforming dispute resolution

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Reforming dispute resolution

Duly copy-edited. I have removed the passive voice with extreme prejudice, and refined some of the proposal presentation so that its structure is more coherent. I also suggested one condition in the proposed general wizard, which I've marked in red. Please review that at your leisure.

The two points for discussion in the ivory† box at the top of the page do not seem to have much relevance to your proposals. Do you have more proposals to add to the RFC? If not, I would suggest you remove those points, and leave only the paragraph in the header box. Let the proposal speak for itself. This is another red marker that needs removed once you have reviewed.

†It's nice to see somebody else who loves that colour. :-)

You may wish to say who will code these gadgets you propose; if it's not you (as the reader will assume), you should have somebody lined up. Practicality means a lot to Wikipedians: a new suspension bridge might be great for the city, but if a pauper asks for permission to build one, the citizens are naturally going to wonder where the money is to come from!

More generally, the title of "Reforming dispute resolution" certainly reflects the purpose of your reform, but not really its effect. It's too grand, so "Centralising DR requests" or something would be more accurate title. Alternatively, you could use "Reforming dispute resolution" as an umbrella RFC title, and make the page I've just copy-edited, along with pages for any other ideas you have, into sub-pages. Like all umbrella RFCs, you could then have multiple options for RFC participants to visit and consider. YMMV.

Otherwise, great work, and I hope my edits and comments are of some use. AGK [•] 22:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S. No payment is necessary, but that RFM script would be just lovely. :-D AGK [•] 22:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The changes (and addition) looks great. I might retitle the page and will definitely mention who is coding the wizard (and I stole the ivory box from the RFC you created :P). It's very slow at work so I will work on the RFM script today :) Szhang (WMF) (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Stale DRN thread: Deftones

Hi Steve. The thread Deftones has been open for over ten days. Can you review it and take action if necessary? Thanks. EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 10:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Stale DRN thread: Crunkcore, Kesha

Hi Steve. The thread Crunkcore, Kesha has been open for over ten days. Can you review it and take action if necessary? Thanks. EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 23:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Bug in survey code

Steve, there's a bug in the radio button code in the "How effective do you feel volunteers are at resolving disputes at the below forums (1 is the most effective, 7 is the least effective)" section. If you make a choice in the "talk page discussion" line, then make a choice in the next line below, when you make a choice in the third line it removes the choice in the second line and so on down the lines, leaving only the choice in the first line and the last line clicked. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's a bug in the code - are you trying to select an option more than once? (Ie, rate more than one forum as 1 or 2 and so on) - if you aren't, please let me know ASAP. Cheers, Szhang (WMF) (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Note

• I've left a note on your other talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Stale DRN thread: Bitcoin as an investment

Hi Steve. The thread Bitcoin as an investment has been open for over ten days. Can you review it and take action if necessary? Thanks. EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 00:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Stale DRN thread: Ruba'i article

Hi Steve. The thread Ruba'i article has been open for over ten days. Can you review it and take action if necessary? Thanks. EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 22:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Stale DRN thread: Talk:Organic food

Hi Steve. The thread Talk:Organic food has been open for over ten days. Can you review it and take action if necessary? Thanks. EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 19:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Stale DRN thread: Leveson Inquiry

Hi Steve. The thread Leveson Inquiry has been open for over ten days. Can you review it and take action if necessary? Thanks. EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 22:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Stale DRN thread: Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim

Hi Steve. The thread Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim has been open for over ten days. Can you review it and take action if necessary? Thanks. EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 08:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Stale DRN thread: Peter Proctor

Hi Steve. The thread Peter Proctor has been open for over ten days. Can you review it and take action if necessary? Thanks. EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 10:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Stale DRN thread: Talk:Campaign for_Nuclear_Disarmament

Hi Steve. The thread Talk:Campaign for_Nuclear_Disarmament has been open for over ten days. Can you review it and take action if necessary? Thanks. EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 11:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

editToken

Hello SCrossin (WMF),

Your script User:SCrossin (WMF)/mcw.js is no longer functional because it attempts to get an editToken from mw.user.tokens. The script should instead get a csrfToken. editTokens were removed from mw.user.tokens on October 3, 2019 at Phabricator during this edit as they were redundant to csrfTokens.– BrandonXLF (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)