User talk:The Wordsmith/Dispute Resolution revamp

@Jbhunley and Yngvadottir: You both mentioned RFC/U and other DR, so I invite your opinions and help drafting something. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will spend some time this evening thinking about it. Jbh ^Talk 22:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it's a good idea. But I had heard there was great weariness in the admin corps about RfC/U, and we would be asking people to take on a similar, although more limited task. Also real life has hit me with a whammy and I am even less full of feasible ideas than usual. So I can't promise to be of much use in drafting. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was weariness, because it was so easy to initiate one (only required two editors in good standing to certify the basis of the dispute), so it became a witch hunt against any admin or editor who did anything remotely controversial. By limiting initiation to consensus at AN, ANi or Arbcom, that would probably take away much of the toxicity. It would be a good option for certain editors who keep popping up at Dramaboards, but not doing anything bad enough to be sanctioned, to get feedback and have their conduct examined as a whole without involving the Committee. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on "RFC/U"

As noted above the key to getting a new RFC/U going is to limit opening one to a consensus decision at AN or ANI.

It would be best if the "request" specify a very specific scope but in any case there need to be some scope limitation in either time or behavior examined to keep it from becoming a pile on.
The process needs to be able to give out blocks, bans, and other editing restrictions.
It needs to have some form of uninvolved clerking by editors that have the power to keep the process focused, address disruption and maintain scope.
The process should not be called RFC/U because of the baggage associated with the name.

Jbh ^Talk 17:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what my idea of a constructive and fairly lightweight "editor behavior review" process might look like:

Process is opened by an admin who receives the complaint (request for review) and does a cursory review to make sure it's not frivolous or vexatious.
The admin selects or recruits one or two uninvolved veteran editors with a reputation for fairness and diplomacy to act as moderators.
Complainant, complainee, and moderator(s) are the only parties to the process initially; others may join as parties or otherwise participate only by permission of the moderators.
Moderators' job is not to adjudicate the process but to understand the dispute from all parties' perspectives and to construct a coherent explanation of the dispute and where the parties have common ground and where they disagree.
After moderators have summarized the dispute (ideally with all parties' concurring as to the facts), the moderators invite an uninvolved admin (not the one who opened the process) to review their summary of the dispute and take any necessary corrective measures.
Objectives of the moderators:

Understand the complaint, its scope, and the key parties (escalating to Arbcom if too many parties, too large scope, etc.)
Gather facts that aid in understanding the dispute or behavior
Understand the perspectives of each of the parties
Identify editors who might have insight into the dispute, and invite their constructive input
Encourage and model dispassionate analysis; discourage quarrelling
Help parties find common ground
Identify key areas of disagreement among the parties regarding which behaviors are acceptable or excusable
Identify positive steps taken by any of the parties to resolve the matter or self-correct
Summarize the dispute or behavior, and each party's perspective on it, in a factual, non-accusatory way, ideally that all parties can stipulate to
Recruit an uninvolved, impartial admin to review the summary and decide outcomes

alanyst 19:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]