User:Abd/Pre-arbitration/Whig

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an experiment to attempt a pre-arbitration process. While this is not arbitration, the evidence gathered and reviewed here may later be used in arbitration, or may form the basis for an RFC prior to arbitration. This is in my userspace, and I will serve as a moderator for this process, as long as the parties consent. As an experiment, the "rules" may shift as we proceed, part of this experiment is to develop efficient process for resolving disputes that is more organized than ANI and RFC. To some extent this may duplicate the mediation processes and no intention exists to replace them, but rather to experiment with alternate process. Please do not waste time and effort warring here, it won't be tolerated, and WP:AGF will be strictly enforced. There will be a time to state suspicions and accusations, after we all have the evidence before us. My operating assumption is that everyone was operating in good faith, and that differences of opinion were due either to legitimate differences or to misunderstandings. Another editor recently pointed out to me, on an article Talk page, Hanlon's razor. As if to demonstrate it, another editor complained that this was an insult. It's easy to understand how it looked that way; however, we are all ignorant, none of us know everything, and if we could know what others know, we might find ourselves in agreement much more often.

The first step is for an interested party to begin by stating a grievance or issue that should be resolved, for the benefit of the project. Personal benefit may be stated; however, I would then decide if this impacts the project sufficiently to be worth the effort of carrying this on here. Note that at any time, this file may be copied elsewhere, to be continued under the auspices of another editor. My function here is replaceable.

Do not respond to the grievance or issue unless I have indicated that there is an issue to be considered here, unless it is to second it, and the presence of a second, someone who agrees that we should consider this issue, appears. A grievance or request for the consideration of an issue which cannot find a second must be considered immature. For this purpose -- and for this process in general -- what might be considered canvassing is acceptable. When it is consensus being sought, votes truly don't count; that is, one vote, if backed by argument, and even sometimes if not, has practically as much weight as many.

Readers might note that I will be, to some degree, taking process hints from Parliamentary procedure. You may assume that I would be receptive to motions taken from that; for example, Objection to the Consideration of a Question would be in order once a complaint or issue has been stated, but not after actual deliberation has begun. After the issue has been stated and seconded, I will allow 24 hours before formally opening the process. During this period, however, the gathering of evidence may begin, as long as any party doing so understands that this whole process may be shut down if an objection is made and sustained.

The next step will be for an interested party to begin to detail what happened. Consider this an article on the incident or situation; I will require WP:V to be followed, but, of course, Wikipedia History is here considered a reliable source. For the first step, do not insert opinion or judgment, only diffs or the like and a description of what they show in NPOV fashion. We will attempt to come, first, to consensus on the record. What did happen, in time sequence. To begin with, "notability" is established by any editor asserting it. Later, we may, by consensus, weed out what is only noise, or I may intervene with a judgment; however, I think we are starting with what may be a relatively easy case to resolve through careful, step-by-step process. This is not a Talk page, and the editing of what others have placed here, to correct it, is at this point legitimate. I will review all such edits and keep them, revert them, or modify them as I see fit in order to foster the development of consensus.

"Consensus" here means "consent among all involved parties." It is a goal, not a requirement. Because this process cannot make binding decisions, if we use polling, it will be, as with most Wikipedia polling, advisory only, a measurement of consensus, as an element in decision-making.

Contents 1 Issue to be examined 2 Seconded 3 Interested parties 4 History or Examples

[edit] Issue to be examined

(replace this with a signed statement from the initiator)

[edit] Seconded

(replace this with a signed second)

[edit] Interested parties

(if you are interested in participating, add your name here, you may receive notices on your Talk page regarding this process. Note to participants: do not use this list to place notices without the consent of the interested group as a whole, as evidenced by my ruling on a request.)

[edit] History or Examples

(dDo not begin this section until deliberation is opened by the moderator, except as described in the introduction. All text placed here should be strictly NPOV and verifiable).