 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
- WP:DRR now redirects to Wikipedia:Requesting dispute resolution
There have been a number of general proposals in recent months regarding exploring, discussing, and eventually instituting substantial changes ("reforms") to the Dispute resolution (DR) process.
These ideas for DR reform (DRR) come largely in the context of perceived problems with the current overall system, and specifically with the processes used by Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and Wikipedia:Mediation Committees, as well as the staffing of these committees. Such include:
- DR (AC, MC, AMA, RFC) scalability to appropriately match rapid community growth.
- scale problems affect the degree to which Arbitrators can deal appropriately with cases in a detailed way.
- scale problems affect the degree of fatigue Arbitration Committee members experience in fulfilling their duties.
- with regard to the current roles and powers
- role of the Mediation Committee with respect to its relationship to the Arbcom
- role of the Association of Members' Advocates with respect to the overall DR process
- role of the Request for comment with respect to the specific DR cases
For the most part the specific reform proposals (DRRP #) have similar aspects, in general each stating that:
- DR staffing should be expanded
- the current DR process should be reviewed
- that any DR process review be holistic in its approach
- that any DR process review be complete, to include all detail regarding statements of purpose and process for all committees,
- that any DR process change from a closed process to an open and transparent process
- that any major reform is a community-wide effort,
- that requires polling and perhaps even voting on major changes
- that the possibility of completely reforming the purpose of current existing committees is within the scope of reform,
- that the possibility of forming entirely new committees, and establishing their purpose, is also within the scope of DRR
Beyond the above, ideas for DR reform fall into two general categories of Expansion and Tiered expansion
- The first proposal is a simple tiered DR system whereby the
Wikipedia:Mediation Committee is expanded to serve as a filter for the
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee.
- An expanded AMA has been proposed, in order to represent individuals within the DR
- Conceptually treat disputes as separate issues disputes (IDs) and conduct disputes (CDs).
- Establish a tier of two subordinate committees to deal with each (IDC, CDC) with authority to make binding decisions.
- reviewable by both the sister committee (IDC, CDC) and Arbcom.
- Elevate the current Arbcom to an oversight role in dealing with reviewing 1) committee actions, 2) case record, 3) body of policy, 4) specific appeals
- Arbcom publicly delegates tasks to subcommittees related to specific issues handling, case record cleanup, policy cleanup.
- Establish a "case body" that is annotated for specific reference as precedent in current case decisions
- Arbcom and subcommittees are tasked with formally reviewing policy, and case appeals.
- Integrate the case body with policy body through systematic crosslinking. (Perhaps giving a ranking to policies by hierarchy of primary to tertiary (and rejected) policy —NPOV, civility, etc.)
- meta:Dispute resolution reform - delete
|
| This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
- WP:DRR now redirects to Wikipedia:Requesting dispute resolution
There have been a number of general proposals in recent months regarding exploring, discussing, and eventually instituting substantial changes ("reforms") to the Dispute resolution (DR) process.
These ideas for DR reform (DRR) come largely in the context of perceived problems with the current overall system, and specifically with the processes used by Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and Wikipedia:Mediation Committees, as well as the staffing of these committees. Such include:
- DR (AC, MC, AMA, RFC) scalability to appropriately match rapid community growth.
- scale problems affect the degree to which Arbitrators can deal appropriately with cases in a detailed way.
- scale problems affect the degree of fatigue Arbitration Committee members experience in fulfilling their duties.
- with regard to the current roles and powers
- role of the Mediation Committee with respect to its relationship to the Arbcom
- role of the Association of Members' Advocates with respect to the overall DR process
- role of the Request for comment with respect to the specific DR cases
For the most part the specific reform proposals (DRRP #) have similar aspects, in general each stating that:
- DR staffing should be expanded
- the current DR process should be reviewed
- that any DR process review be holistic in its approach
- that any DR process review be complete, to include all detail regarding statements of purpose and process for all committees,
- that any DR process change from a closed process to an open and transparent process
- that any major reform is a community-wide effort,
- that requires polling and perhaps even voting on major changes
- that the possibility of completely reforming the purpose of current existing committees is within the scope of reform,
- that the possibility of forming entirely new committees, and establishing their purpose, is also within the scope of DRR
Beyond the above, ideas for DR reform fall into two general categories of Expansion and Tiered expansion
- The first proposal is a simple tiered DR system whereby the
Wikipedia:Mediation Committee is expanded to serve as a filter for the
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee.
- An expanded AMA has been proposed, in order to represent individuals within the DR
- Conceptually treat disputes as separate issues disputes (IDs) and conduct disputes (CDs).
- Establish a tier of two subordinate committees to deal with each (IDC, CDC) with authority to make binding decisions.
- reviewable by both the sister committee (IDC, CDC) and Arbcom.
- Elevate the current Arbcom to an oversight role in dealing with reviewing 1) committee actions, 2) case record, 3) body of policy, 4) specific appeals
- Arbcom publicly delegates tasks to subcommittees related to specific issues handling, case record cleanup, policy cleanup.
- Establish a "case body" that is annotated for specific reference as precedent in current case decisions
- Arbcom and subcommittees are tasked with formally reviewing policy, and case appeals.
- Integrate the case body with policy body through systematic crosslinking. (Perhaps giving a ranking to policies by hierarchy of primary to tertiary (and rejected) policy —NPOV, civility, etc.)
- meta:Dispute resolution reform - delete