Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

New Volunteer? Again?

I can see a new editor has included his/her name (User:Fruit Nd Nut) in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteers, who's newer than 'Editor of all things Wikipedia'. How come we get new volunteers very often? What's attracting new editors here (to be volunteers in particular)? *sigh*--☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I can only assume it's the simple fact that being a Dispute Resolution Volunteer conveys upon one Absolute Power. DonIago (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

(Jaaron95) please do not mistake me being new as being incompetent in volunteering here. I am in fact in I.T so although new, am more then capable. Perhaps I may suggest with strong unconstructive opinions like that YOU may reconsider volunteering here.--Fruit Nd Nut (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Fruit Nd Nut - I am troubled by your immediate hostile comment to User:Jaaron95. I don't see a "strong unconstructive" opinion on his part. I do on yours, but will accept that you were just rubbed the wrong way. Where he is coming from is that, only a few days ago, we had another very new editor who wasn't willing to take time to learn the complicated environment of Wikipedia, and violated multiple rules, and damaged a mediation case here, and eventually had to be blocked. So Jaaron95 is understandably wary. I would caution you that experience in IT (of which I have 45 years) does not in itself qualify you for any particular virtual community. IT experience can be in dealing with the non-human computer, or the humans behind the screens, and how the humans behind the screens react and behave depends very much on the virtual community. So please try to be patient with us as we try to be patient with you. You were indeed rubbed the wrong way on entry, but you have rubbed us the wrong way in lecturing one of us. Try to work with us and learn, not to run in enthusiastically thinking that you can lead. TransporterMan has good advice to observe here for a while, or to work at the third opinion project, which is much lighter-weight, or to work at the specialized noticeboards. We just had a bad experience with a new editor. Please try to give us a good experience with a new editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I think "new" is a relative term. A high number of edits/months on WP does not automatically make one a good (or bad) DRN volunteer. The components of a good DRN moderator are 1) people/communication skills and 2) good working knowledge of WPs policies and guidelines. People skills usually come from one's personality and real life experiences. Knowledge of WP policies usual takes time and experience on WP but for some the learning curve could be very short. It just depends on the person. In any case we should assume good faith and welcome people of all backgrounds. They can start slow, get a mentor and/or make use of this talk page to get themselves up to speed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, Fruit Nd Nut. Thank you for volunteering to help here at DRN. I've a volunteer here at DRN since its beginning. Being in IT with its concomitant knowledge of tech issues is not as important as having a great deal of experience at Wikipedia and, via that experience, having a fairly comprehensive knowledge of Wikipedia policy, guidelines, procedures, and customs. Some real-world experience in dispute resolution does not hurt, either, but it's the knowledge of those other things which is important since about 95% of all content disputes revolve around policy issues or can be resolved by the proper understanding and application of policy. If you don't have that knowledge, either by a long history of IP editing or by intensive study, I'd strongly recommend that you merely observe for a considerable period of time or, much better, take some requests over at the Third Opinion project and spend some time participating at the specialized noticeboards such as reliable sources noticeboard, biographies of living persons noticeboard, and no original research noticeboard, among others. Best regards and thanks again, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Fruit Nd Nut please don't get offended.. My comments were so, 'cause all the new editors I saw did not have good understanding on Wiki policies. I thought you were one of them. That's it.. Nothing against volunteering here. Regards--☮JAaron95 ^Talk 17:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

(JAaron95) I understand what you are saying, it must be somewhat frustrating when new editors volunteer and make contributions when they are not totally familiar with the processes, I can assure you that I only want to make helpful contributions and will not do so until I have complete understanding of the gudelines....ect....ect. best regards--Fruit Nd Nut (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It would be wise for Fruit Nd Nut to learn a bit about how Wikipedia works before volunteering to help with dispute resolution. I have been tidying up a few of his editing mistakes, including posting user warnings to an article page and to an article talk page, presumably having mistaken each of them for a user talk page. He has also placed a speedy deletion tag with a crioterion that obviously doesn't match the criteria in WP:CSD. If someone else has time it may be worth looking at his other edits. He is obviously enthusiastic, but still needs to learn the basics. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There should be no question regarding knowledge of new moderators, but there is always possibility that if moderator's opinion goes against one of disputant then that disputant can dispute moderator himself on the basis of less experience of moderator. In my case, I was involved party in previous dispute and Steven Zhang was moderator (who also created this board), but when Steve took one stand regarding disputed content then one of disputant demanded change in moderator. Means, disputant here can apply any logic to defend their version, In this case of Fruit Nd Nut any experienced editor can question stand of Fruit on the basis of less experience. He/she is on Wikipedia since just a week. For anyone it takes months to understand policies of Wikipedia deeply. It took 2-3 months for me to understand Wikipedia properly. Still it doesn't mean that others will also take that much time, still disputants have always a reason to have objection over less experienced moderator. In my opinion, one should be well aware of all Wiki policies regarding what kind of content should be on Wikipedia to moderate such things. There is also my name in volunteers list, but I have not moderated any dispute yet but I will moderate in future. I'm on Wikipedia since 7 months, have 8,000+ edits, but its just since 2-3 months I became more confident Wikipedian. Still best regards to Fruit N Nut. Cheers. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  18:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

From the header to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard: "We are always looking for new volunteers... having... a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important." I think that it is only reasonable that people seeking dispute resolution should assume that volunteers meet what seems a fairly obvious requirement. While turning away someone from dispute resolution on the basis that they lack the necessary knowledge may well upset them, failing to do so may result in disruption to dispute resolution, and potentially cause a great deal more upset. We need to look at the broader picture. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Andy's right here. I think it'd be beneficial for an "accepted" (for lack of a better term) DRN volunteer to have a certain amount of talk page experience -- be it at article talk pages or our various forums before getting active in dispute resolution. Such editors are more likely to have experienced different situations, making it easier to address DRN needs, both in terms of policy knowledge and interactions. —SpacemanSpiff 15:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)