Wikipedia:Requests for remedies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

✘ This proposal has failed to attain consensus within the Wikipedia community. A failed proposal is one for which a consensus to accept is not present after a reasonable amount of time, and seems unlikely to form, regardless of continuing discussion.
Shortcut:
WP:REMEDY
This page in a nutshell: Neutral users (only) certify if a dispute resolution problem is valid. Trusted neutral users (only) then write suggested remedies. The community then certifies if the suggestions should be enforced.

A very simple three-step system that can make trusted, basically final decisions on very tricky or complex matters, based on evaluations from trusted, neutral users on a given case.

[edit] Process

In simple terms, this is how an RfR would flow:

The RfR process
  1. User submits a Request for Remedies, (usually after failing to find agreement on the talk-page).
  2. Only neutral users over the next week certify the RfR to determine its validity. (Duration: 7 days)
     » If someone disputes the claimed neutral nature of a certifier, and consensus supports that challenge, that certification !vote is struck.
  3. If the RfR is certified--a problem exists, that needs remedies--the Remedy Committee will draft their suggested solutions based on the evidence, history, their own digging, etc., and post their suggestions within one week. Only members of the Committee that are neutral may help draft remedies for a given case. (Duration: 7 days)
  4. If someone disputes the claimed neutral nature of a Committee member, and consensus supports that challenge, recusal here is mandatory.
  5. All deliberations are in public. There is no RfR mail list, no rfr-l or rc-l, and never should be. Transparency is the key to the RfR's possible success.
  6. The general communitiy takes the suggested remedies, and certifies them if it wishes. They have no more or less authority than any other widely supported (consensus) community viewpoint has--it's just a different, cleaner and fairer way to generate the remedies themselves. If a remedy requires admin action, any neutral admin can choose to use their tools as they feel consensus supports their use. (Duration: 7 days)
  7. If initial certification fails, the RfR is done. If the final community certification fails, the RfR is done.
  8. Remedies may be appealed through various existing channels, such as a new Request for remedies, WP:AN, WP:ANI, or WP:RFAR, the final avenue of appeal in general on the English Wikipedia.
  9. The remedies cannot include removal of a userright other than rollback.

[edit] Remedy Committee election/members

There are two ways to approach this. "Standing" Remedy Committee members, with tenures of fixed duration, or a case-by-case jury model--your term of service is for that case, but you can work on multiple cases during the month, or year.

  1. Requirements: have a username. Be trusted.
  2. In the first year, we'll hold a simple election or decide to use a jury model. Nothing even close to AC or RFA in scale/fanciness. You self nominate, and we have a simple up and down support/oppose. Over-processing here, especially in the first year, is pointless. The top 20 by percentage of support are the first class of the RC.
  3. Terms are for a single case (jury model) or up to two years. Community decides.
  4. Recusal is done by the community or a judge chosen from arbcom (jury model), not by the recused person.
  5. Members have no rights, powers or anything, beyond drafting remedies.

[edit] Request for remedies as a part of dispute resolution

The RfR process comes after venues such as mediation (formal, or informal), third opinion, administrator noticeboards (any), and requests for comment, but before the Arbitration Committee. It is a framework for generating an unbiased, neutral, and fair solution to a dispute. The committee will take a complaint certified by the community. It will provide a suggested solutions, based on policy, precedent and good practice.

Request for remedies is intended to complement the existing dispute resolution process by addressing three basic points:

  1. Are the issues portrayed valid and accurately portrayed?
  2. What are the best solutions and remedies to these problems, if they are valid?
  3. Does the community support these suggested remedies?