Wikipedia talk:Requests for remedies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is very much a first draft. Tweak it at will. Yes, zomg! PROCESS! Evil! So what? The project is getting so huge that we need some. I suggest any complaints of ZOMG NO PROCESS! be pushed aside. If a process works for the community, it's not a bad thing. Built from this rambling idea post I left Moreschi and Jehochman:

Basically, a function like the AC, for when things get sticky. Submit a report for sanctions. Evidence. The whole nine--sort of like an RFC, or even the same format. You've got say one week to see if a decent number of UNINVOLVED people sign off on your evidence and "complaint". No Support/Oppose nonsense. I have no idea what a decent number would be. If that happens, your complaint is certified, and then a group of users (a mix of admins and non-admins by design) who were chosen ahead of time by the community just draws up a couple of remedies. Nothing in any of this is as formal of the AC. A remedy committee, I suppose, to suggest solutions (topic bans of various flavors, sanctions, article/user probations, blocks, whatever) to the certified problem. Once that's done, the "RC" just pops their suggested solutions back into the RFC type thing, and voila--all suggestions that have clear support after a week are "in effect". It's not a votes for banning. It requires THREE layers of consensus--consensus from uninvolved people *only* being allowed to weigh in if the initial complaint has merit, a week to certify--slow consensus layer 1. Then the "RC" suggests and posts solution suggestions--slow consensus layer 2. Then the community gets to endorse whichever suggestions they feel are best over a week, and those stick--slow consensus layer 3. No one on Earth could argue then that they were quickly railroaded, or that consensus was dubious for their sanctions. Anyone dicking around in violation of THESE sanctions would be on a fast track to nastiness like very easy Arbitration.

Have at it. Lawrence § t/e 22:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Why a committee?

Why not just make a list of all users willing to invest the time to look at these issues and when one gets certified, choose 5 randomly. Those five review and come to a conclusion supported by 3.

Thank you for at least attempting to come up with a replacement to the broken RFCU process. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Do you mean WP:RFC (request for comment) or WP:RFCU (check user)? Thanks for clarifying. Also you may be using the wrong number of twiddles, your datestamp's missing ;) ++Lar: t/c 18:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
How do you choose five randomly -- what's your method? Noroton (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Even if you could choose 5 randomly, why eliminate another 15 or 35 trusted users from helping craft a well-reasoned remedy? How do you know you're getting the best five everytime? I love Shirley Jackson, but not in my life. Lawrence § t/e 22:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Any method could choose 5. The other 15 or 35 wouldn't be excluded from the discussion, but from the decision. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
What? You are saying that 5 randomly picked users have the final say in whether or not other users get banned from Wikipedia! ArbCom is one thing, since those users have thoroughly proven their trust by being voted in, but picking five randomly makes the process sort of an oligarchy, which is definitely not appropriate for Wikipedia. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 02:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Er... what would be the benefit of this? And to Parent5446, the Remedy group has no banning power. They just are a trusted group that formulates requested remedies. Lawrence § t/e 02:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm a little hesitant to want ArbCom Junior. A small group that looks at many issues is going to get overwhelmed. A large group that has to look at many issues doesn't scale. So I was envisioning a larger group that splits into smaller groups for specific items. The larger group has to consist of a dynamic membership as people drop out. I'm not proposing anything specific, just throwing the idea out that a static committee that looks at all issues doesn't seem like a recipe for success. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

[edit] Could this amount to blackballing unpopular editors? And is that a bad thing?

I'm not sure what the answer to my question is. If somebody is so unpopular that they could go through this process and be banned or blocked or whatever, perhaps they should be, fair or not. Just a thought. Overall, I like this proposal. Noroton (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the neat thing, that I thought of. Having three layers of simple safeguards helps to make sure that simply being unpopular won't leave you hung out to dry--I mean, you'd have to be really, REALLY unpopular for that to happen. If that was the case, you'd be a likely candidate any admin summary block to stick. Lawrence § t/e 22:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I was just thinking that. This actually would tend to ameliorate a lot of lower level abuse of people who are unpopular. Deliberating -- discussiong in an official forum -- and checks both pull people away from emotion-based decisions, and the transparency here would also help.Noroton (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. You would need in essence a mega-cabal to bias this process to a desired outcome. And that can't happen, since if someone is suspected of bias that is participating under a claim of non-involvement can be quickly removed by other non-involved users. I tried to make it so that it could almost defend itself. Lawrence § t/e 23:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It just seems like the ArbCom except...

less deliberative, more random, and with a much higher risk of blowback. If you're going to hand out executive powers to the whims of either an unelected few, or worse, a mob, you're going to have to consider not only the immediate on-wiki ramifications (which likely would be severe), but also the long-term way this impacts the off-wiki perceptions of the entire project. There is a reason why ArbCom has both such great responsibility and a longer turnaround time - in fact, these two qualities are required together in order to keep their power both fair and in check.

Needless to say, I oppose this proposal, at least in its current incarnation. Good luck, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, did you read the proposal? We are handing out no executive powers to anyone. On what are you basing this? The Request for Remedies has to be certified first by uninvolved users. The "Committee" here does nothing then but draft the recommendation for the remedy, and strictly only uninvolved users can draft that suggestion. The community then decides what to do with that suggestion. Basically, you have to achieve uninvolved community consensus that the need for a remedy is valid, then a trusted group in public comes up with a suggested remedy(ies), and the general community then decides if they want to follow the committee's suggestion. By the time it's done, on purpose spread out over three weeks' time, the remedy in question has successfully passed THREE levels of consensus and is functionally bulletproof. What executive dictats are you seeing here, exactly? Lawrence § t/e 23:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Remedies can take the form of any number or form of restrictions, ban, probations, and so on that the community can do anyway. Let me ask a question first, however. Is there any indication from the ArbCom that they can't handle their current workload, and therefore would like another level of process? That really is the paramount concern, for me anyway. I just don't see how more process can be justified otherwise. Sorry, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
We don't need to defer to ArbCom on the question of whether we want to set this up or not. Wikipedia is not the Roman Catholic Church where we must always defer upward. Noroton (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. The AC is just a deliberately seperate extension of the community. Lawrence § t/e 23:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The community can and does already issues all sorts of editing restrictions, bans, probations, and so on. We do this daily, and every week more complaints come up that they are done unfairly to established users. The Arbcom is completely seperate from this, and if you've been following the AC, there is a growing amount of discord in regards to how the AC process works. This is a simple adding of fairness to the existing dispute resolution process.
Also, in regards to your last point: No phase of this proposed RfR process has any executive power at all, except to remove an involved editor's certification and drafting of remedies from the first two parts of the RfR process itself. The third part is just to see if the community certifies the proposed remedies. It's basically intended to be a completely fair way to come up with a remedy for a certfied "problem". The community then at the very end decides if they want to act on that developed proposal to a certified problem. Who exactly is the executive in this system? It's oversight is the community itself, or the AC, if a particular RfR case ever totally fell apart, which isn't likely since there will be 20 drafters in the first year and 40 each year afterwards. That's more participation and eyes than even an ANI thread gets...! Lawrence § t/e 23:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This is just like ArbCom except ... it isn't secretive, it therefore has much less chance of seeming like some conspiracy or other is taking place behind closed doors, although we'll still have ArbCom to take cases where some discussions absolutely must take place behind closed doors. Therefore this new institution would help assure Wikipedians that governance is fair. Witnessing the carnival atmosphere at AN and AN/I when some controversy erupts convinces me that we need another alternative to the very forbidding atmosphere for non-administrators at AN/I and the forbidding complexity and enormous investment of time involved in taking something to ArbCom.Noroton (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Another concern is how you are vetting your voting users. Currently, the model essentially is an inclusive "trusted until challenged otherwise" instead of something more nuanced. Letting aside the question of how you will sort out the votes of potentially misinformed new users or, worse, sock puppets, the other basic question arises of how you will discard challenged voters. Is any objection to lead to user dismissal? If so, then there is tremendous gaming possibility. If not, then will there then be another vote on whether or not to accept said user's vote? It just seems to me to be a potential minefield. I'm sorry, but given the potential powers of this group, I think that we need to carefully scrutinize all possible weaknesses before this is implemented. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

We're a long way from implementing--and you keep ignoring that the Remedy Committee has NO power except to offer suggestions to the community. That's IT. It's no minefield, and it's very simple, and based on on-wiki editing contributions obvious: no involved users in the initial certification or remedy drafting. That's it. You had a certification !vote, but a consensus of other uninvolved users concluded you are involved: your !vote is removed. Simple. That's the entire point of this; the question of whether a dispute or problem is valid, and it's suggested remedies, can ONLY be initially worked on here by uninvolved users. The community then decides what if anything to do with those suggestions. That's it, the entire process. The "Committee" here has no power except to police itself. Note that the initial certification also is NOT the RC. It's the community. The RC only comes into play to draft the suggested remedies. Lawrence § t/e 23:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And as far as the point about the community already banning and restricting users, that's a very misleading characterization. Admins do this, and only after having passed an RfA and with the understanding that gross malfeasance of the tools will lead to losing those privileges. We don't just submit to the users at large to ask them what the admins should do. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What wikipedia are you editing? Non-admins always participate in decisions on banning and the like, and sanctions. You don't even need to be an admin to be on the Arbitration Committee. I participate in dispute resolution discussions all the time, and I'm not an admin. Admins have buttons they can push, if the time is right, but admins absolutely do not exclusively decide "who lives and who dies". Lawrence § t/e 23:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
But you'd rather submit even those buttons to group vote. I'll remind you, we are not a democracy. And I would prefer if you'd stop teetering on the edge of NPA with me, as well. Anyway, I guess I don't count, and I have no intention to stay where I'm not wanted, so I'll leave the floor to you gentlemen. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This process explicitly is not a vote; it's a demonstration of consensus three times over. Note that my proposal never says "An admin must pull the trigger." My proposal says:

Uninvolved users (only) certify if a dispute resolution problem is valid. Trusted uninvolved users (only) then write suggested remedies. The community then certifies if the suggestions should be enforced.

An admin has to then push the button to enforce a block, if a block remedy is certified by the community. However, if 40 or 50 people certify that someone should be blocked in response to a problem that was already certified by a great many people, that's by far more consensus then we have now for any block on any day. Thats the point of this. This RfR is just that: a process to find a remedy. It says nothing about who will enforce it. Lawrence § t/e 23:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Yes indeed, G.S., admins do one helluva lot of things, and having gone through an RfA once is no guarantee whatever that they won't abuse their authority. We have AN and AN/I to help check that abuse, but if you've got a lot of pals to come support you, or, more typically, if the admins who happen to be looking at AN or AN/I are deferential to you the admin you're in a conflict with -- and admins are extremely deferential to each other -- the editor being abused by the admin can be screwed (especially if the screwee isn't articulate or is angry). Your alternative after AN/I is generally ArbCom, which is like taking a case from the local town court to the U.S. Supreme Court and just as daunting. Noroton (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC) (words added for clarity)Noroton (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
You make WP:AN seem like a corrupt process where admins just let other admins do what they want without objection. There may be times when this is true, but the process is not like that all the time. Users, especially certain admins, are very skeptical about certain situations. Anyway, the only time your description of the process applies is during admin abuse, which does not happen very often; when it does, admins do not usually just ignore it. Responding to your second point, if ArbCom is like U.S Supreme Court, wouldn't that make RfR a type of Appeals Court, which is just as bad? Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 00:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
AN isn't a festering den of evil, no more than any other page here is. Its just too unfocused for this job. Lawrence § t/e 02:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
And what exactly is the job to be done here, and are you sure there isn't a process already that takes care of it?
The job to be done here is to cut out all the lynch mobbing and pointless debates and flame wars that have made community sanction and "final" dispute resolution processes on AN and ANI all but unusable except in the most basic of cases. Lawrence § t/e 04:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trusted by whom?

I haven't decided yet about the merits of the idea in general, but I suggest that per NPOV, the word "trusted" be removed in most or all places it appears on the page. (Trusted by whom?) --Coppertwig (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Having some, though not a great deal, of experience with "dispute resolution" processes that fail to resolve disputes, I dont think it can be a bad thing to try another way, and the rationale behind this proposal at least seems sound on the face of it. --Newbyguesses - Talk 01:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
NPOV applies to articles, not dispute resolution. Trusted = enough users supported the 20-40 people that would be on the Remedy committee. Which, by the way, I'll just say again literally will have no role but to write suggested remedies for certified cases. Lawrence § t/e 02:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I still do not see why we need users to come up with rememdies for the community. The commmunity could just make their own remedies (hey, we're trying to make one here, and the suggested remedy is one I disagree with, as you may have seen). Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 02:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
How well and fairly does this process work on AN and ANI, under the current practices? Lawrence § t/e 02:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank. Fucking. God.

This is what I've been wanting for six months. Lawrence, I don't know who you are but I could kiss you. Will (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

My wife may protest! You hate it, then? Any suggestions/modifications? Lawrence § t/e 02:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I love it ;) Just the thing we need to get rid of the WP:LYNCHMOB. Will (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
This whole process is ridiculous. As if we did not have enough dispute resolution processes, we now have one that assumes almost as much power as ArbCom yet is less strict when selecting users. I mean, seriously, we have WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:MC, WP:ARBCOM, as well as the original way of dispute resolution: bringing it to the talk page. Is there really a need for Wikipedia to go through the process of developing brand new dispute process when the ones in effect are working perfectly? Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 02:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
This has NO power like Arbcom. None. It literally is just an avenue to generate fair, suggested remedies, and provides a focused venue for the community to ratify them. Lawrence § t/e 02:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, that was my misinterpretation. Either way, why do we need a committee of ten, twenty, or even thirty (or more) members to make suggestions for solutions when the WHOLE community could come together as a whole and suggest their own remedies. It may not be as refined as this process, but it allows every user to make an input, thus generating a better consensus. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 02:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a lot of DR experience under another username? The problem is the current method is a random and unpredictable mob. Everyone here certainly has input. A bad Request won't even be certified unless a reasonable consensus of uninvolved users agrees. The community then actually has to endorse the suggested remedies. It's a three part way to ensure that only the valid requests get through, and so that only just remedies get accepted. Lawrence § t/e 02:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I did have another username, but this is not the place to discuss it. You do have a point, though. I just think that a committee that comes up with suggestions, and not actually doing anything themselves, is not as useful as it could be. Maybe if the committee was a little bit more like ArbCom (not adding the banning powers or anything), where the committee was voted in for a period of time, and they come up with a list of suggestions that the community then decides upon one of those suggestions (unless all of the suggestions are ridiculous, which we could create a special clause for). This way, the users in the committee are more trustworthy and have a bit more power in exchange for less mobbing as seen in normal discussions, a smoother process, and a more useful process. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 02:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
"Maybe if the committee was a little bit more like ArbCom (not adding the banning powers or anything), where the committee was voted in for a period of time, and they come up with a list of suggestions that the community then decides upon one of those suggestions"
This is exactly what my proposal is. :)
You submit an RfR about me with tons of evidence (diffs, AN/ANI threads, RFCs, etc). I'm allegedly out of control about something. A consensus of uninvolved users certifies your request for the committee to generate remedies within one week. Next week, the committee sits down and drafts suggested remedies in the case. They present them to the community on the RfR--the Request for Remedies has been processed. The community then, over the third week, certifies the valid remedies based on everything presented and known. You've now triple-consensused the dispute and remedy process: as close to iron-clad as we get, and with a minimum in most cases of fuss.
Remedy Comittee members as members have no power or role to do anything except help write remedies for RfRs they have no involvement with. That's it. They would get elected in a simple up and down vote (the first one might be a bear to organize, but not overmuch). Adminship is not required, since you have no powers. Only community trust is required. My idea was for 20 the first year, then another 20 next year, for a pool of 40, two year terms. WMF board style basic vote, because we don't need fancier: top 20 by percentage of votes get on. That way we'll always have some around to process RfRs. Lawrence § t/e 05:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you need elections. Why not just allow admins in good standing to volunteer on a case by case basis. To be honest, there are very few editors that are considered neutral for every article subject. Addhoc (talk) 07:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not getting it

Maybe I'm just not getting this, but after reading your proposal on the main page, and your short blurb at the top here, this is my impression of your grand scheme:

Requests for remedies soufflé
Ingredients
Preparation
Toss all ingredients together into a large bowl. Shake up (don't stir!) as much as possible to make sure it's all mussed up in a completely random fashion. Doesn't matter how long you do this, but make sure the needless bureaucracy is mixed in very well. Bake at 350°F for 1 week or until burnt to a crisp.
Serving
Slather the whole mess over any little conflict, no matter how trivial or critical, making sure to usurp any cases that really should belong in a committee that is actually authorized to make binding decisions that affect the entire community including Jimbo himself.

Somehow, that doesn't sound as though it would taste very good. What exactly is the problem with all of those processes, anyway? You have 3rd opinion to bring in the perspective of uninvolved users. You have requests for comment for when you need to build a community consensus on something, or call attention to a user's misbehavior. You have AN or ANI for when you need an admin to do something nasty to someone. You have MEDCAB for when you're just really pissed off at someone and need to work it out (and if that's not good enough, you have formal mediation). And in the event all of that fails, you have ArbCom to basically order something to happen. It seems as though you're trying to tarball all of these together to make a mini-me ArbCom that has less authority but more ability to direct how Wikipedia is run because of the wider ranges of cases it would accept and deal with. The reason we have the DR process is so that problems can be dealt with at a lower level before higher-level "binding" stuff has to get involved. It's worked perfectly well as far as I've seen - why fix what isn't broken? Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. - I have read the above discussions, and I'm still not completely seeing your point. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is really simple. Under the current setup (across all these systems) things fester, and fester, then fester and rot some more. No one is either willing in some cases to take decisive action, or the problems are so partisan that every DR step turns into a 500kb chat war. The AC only takes on the very worst cases generally. Let's be completely frank and honest: hardly anyone in the grand scheme of things uses, let alone watchlists, 3rd opinion and the Mediation Cabal right now. Mob rule is out of control generally in waves, until one admin will stick his thumb in some dyke, which causes everyone to go nuts because everyone is terrified of wheel warring. Almost none of the existing solutions have the means to effectively scale as the site grows and grows and never stops growing. That said...
...this simple system is barely bureaucracy, if that. Process is not evil, if it serves a purpose. Whoever first instilled this hatred of any new process here needs to be dragged out back and flayed, because that archaic mindset is what will keep this site from scaling properly.
The process is very, very simple:
  1. Problem develops somewhere. Festers. Grows.
  2. Problem spawns ANI or AN threads. They all do these days, in the end.
  3. Problem grows beyond the rational scope of ANI or AN, or the AN/ANI regulars refer the problem to RfR.
  4. Person submits what basically looks, smells, and feels like an RFC. Evidence. Problem description. Everything. What they want, what is broken.
  5. Key bit: Uninvolved and only uninvolved editors can certify the dispute. If a consensus exists for it to be certified, the "case" goes the Remedy team. If not, that's it--take it to RFC, or the AC if you feel it has legs. You have one week to get it certified. The uninvolved requirement is to assure, for example, that pro-Whatever editors can't mob their opponents.
  6. If the problem is certified, the Remedy team sits down and crafts suggested remedies. After a week, they post them to the RfR. Key bit: only uninvolved members of the team may participate on this.
  7. The general community gets to certify whatever remedies they feel are appropriate, based on their suggestion from the team/committee, and the presented evidence and discussion. Essentially, this finale is the Holy Grail, an RFC with "Teeth" that lacks all the crap and flaming of a normal RFC.
  8. After a week of certification, any remedies that have clear and wide consensus go into effect--editing restrictions, for example. If the suggested certified remedies require admin action, any uninvolved admin can then do them, if they wish. It's all quite volunteery.
The fact that only uninvolved editors can certify the request for remedies to be generated, and that only uninvolved editors can write the remedies, is the key factor. It causes all the involved partisans in whatever dispute to let everyone else get a good slow look at the problems and reach a non-hysterial, non lynch mob decision. It deliberately slows down the pace and excludes partisans early on. Its meant to be a simple, very focused, very deliberate extension of RFC style action in the DR and community sanction process, so when it's over and done with, no one can claim they were railroaded--because no one will be. Any sanction that comes down, or remedy, passed two checks by uninvolved editors and then finally a last sign off by the community. It could always land at the AC afterwards--but consensus on the remedies, after passing THREE clearly defined layers of community review, will be nearly impossible to argue. Lawrence § t/e 04:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Reply to user:Hersfold - Cute cooking analogy! I think the one big problem with Medcabal, and Rfc is that there is no time limit, they can sit there for ever, and fill up megabytes of back-and-forth, or in the case of Rfc, nothing at all. With AN and AN/I, the events could all be over before it gets widely seen, and there are frequently follow-up and duplicate threads.
This current suggestion, for a Wikipedia:Requests for remedies may just work; the time-frame ideas that Lawrence is suggesting could be just the thing that is missing from other dispute resolution processes. I think that users would only request a remedy after they tried "working it out on the talk-page". --Newbyguesses - Talk 05:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you are getting my exact intention. What was up earlier was the first draft; look now: Wikipedia:Requests_for_remedies#Process. I have cleaned it up heavily and streamlined it. Lawrence § t/e 05:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I added this in, but if it doesnt need to be there, then take it back out. --Newbyguesses - Talk 07:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Who determines if the editors are "uninvolved" or not? --Pixelface (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yup, got to agree with Hersfold here. This is a solution looking for a problem. Stifle (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support (and a few thoughts)

I support broadening the remediation process, and I hope that this will provide a more appropriate forum for controversial cases. The arbitration process maintains high standards for obvious reasons, and noticeboard-initiated remedies tend to be hasty and not driven by consensus. If done right, I think this has the potential to fill some major gaps in the DR process.

I suggest that we be lax with the DR process guidelines. In my view, the big flaw of WP:RFC/U is the bureaucratic listing requirements which aim to formalize the highly circumstantial resolution process. Lots of appropriate RFC/Us are closed, while lots of unconstructive cases make it through. Quarrels . Let's construct, and encourage editors to follow, some broad procedural guidelines (which RFC/U somewhat lacks)

— xDanielx T/C\R 07:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scope and intended effect

What types of disputes is this intended to cover? Is this intended to for user conduct issues (such as ArbCom), or content issues (such as MedCom), or both? Is this intended to be binding or non-binding? Is this intended to allow the imposition of editing restrictions (such as 1RR, mainspace-ban-but-talk-allowed sanctions, etc)? Is this intended as a formal process (such as ArbCom and MedCom) or an informal process (such as MedCab and 3O)? Is this intended to be a general dispute resolution step (as many DR processes) or is the intent to generate policy-like consensus backing (like ArbCom and MedCom)? How will this connect to, and fit in with, the other dispute resolution processes? Sorry to jump out with so many detailed questions. I don't mean to be a PITA, but these are the sort of questions that jump out at me when reviewing the idea. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would like it to be a formal process directed mostly at dispute resolution. However, I think that the process could handle content disputes too. It all depends on whether the case is approved. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 12:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Probably should start with just dispute resolution. Lawrence § t/e 13:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of this as an answer to dispute resolution only, in its form, since I was looking for an answer to what seems most broken right now. By it's nature the Remedy Committee has no power, but if a significant number of the community endorse it's remedies, it as binding as anything else on Wikipedia with a large consensus supporting it. It is semi-formalized, simply to stop the total anarchy that is the AN-ANI-RFC to RFAR road we have today. It is both a general dispute resolution step and to generate policy-like consensus backing on problems (I envisioned this coming after AN/ANI/RFC but before RFAR). Great questions. Lawrence § t/e 13:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean by dispute resolution? That is, do you mean providing some remedy that is a framework for participants to work within? Do you mean providing decisions about the situations based on policy and precedent? Etc. Sorry, I'm not trying to be a pain, but rather just trying to get a good handle on what's intended. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Its no pain at all. This as I imagined it would fit into DR at a level after mediation, 3O, and ANI and it's like, but before the Arbcom. A framework is a good word for it--it's a framework to try to generate an unbiased, neutral, and fair solution to a dispute problem. Essentially, the committee will take a valid (certified by the community) complaint, and based on policy, precedent, practice, and history, draw up a few suggested solutions. The community then takes those suggestions and we see if they are supported. If they are, they go "live"... and by that, I mean, it's no different than if a problem were presented to the community today on WP:AN, and I said, "How about this solution?", and 30 people say "Good Idea!", and 2 say "Bad Idea!", then we have consensus to implement my solution. The problem with how we do it now is, how do I know I'm neutral and not a partisan to that case? How much time was allowed for that '30 to 2' consensus (enough consensus for about anything by far, even a ban, RFA to pass, etc.) to form? An hour? A day? A week?
The RfR essentially is doing three functions, to answer three questions and to see if consensus supports those answers, in a hopefully fair neutral way without our current mob chaos:
1. Is the complaint and problem valid and accurately portrayed?
2. What are the best solutions and remedies to these problems if they are valid and accurate?
3. Does the community support these suggested remedies?
Does that clear it up? Lawrence § t/e 15:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes it does. Thank you for indulging my questions and replying so promptly. :) Vassyana (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I hope you do not mind, but I went ahead and revised the page according to your responses.[1] If the changes aren't desirable, please feel free to revert my changes. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Not at all, this is not my page. :) The modern version with that tweak and those by others is now much clearer and concise than my first draft. :) Lawrence § t/e 16:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time Period

I think that we should change the amount of time it takes for the case to be approved. A total of two weeks is too long. Maybe we shorten it to two-three days or something like that. Another suggestion, the committee should be allowed to make temporary injunctions, in order to maintain order while they develop their suggestions. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 12:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I think we should begin to come to a consensus on what the exact scope of the process is so we can continue to the next step (we need to make case submission guidelines, fully set up the page with instructions on how to file a report, set up a "Wikipedia:Remedies Committee" page that will be the committee's main page, and other things if the process is approved). Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 12:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The remedy committee doesn't decide if a case is approved--the community does, during the 1-week certification window. The committee just writes the suggested remedies. Week 1: Certify. Week 2: Draft remedies. Week 3: Certify remedies. I wrote the proposal with each section being a week so it would be easy to follow, to allow for "new" developments and evidence to come up along the way, and to slow the process down, so that mob action couldn't just toss someone out by their coattails unfairly. Lawrence § t/e 13:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I think that the committee should still have the power to make a temporary injunction, because users are not going to wait 3 weeks for their case to be approved and solved. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 15:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
If a problem is so egregious and critical that it needs action right now, the issue can be handled via WP:ANI, which is already setup for that sort of purpose. But for anything else, there's no reason the Remedy Committee couldn't issue a short term remedy like "In this RfR, users John and Bob for the next two weeks are limited to 1rr on Some article they fought over for the duration of the RfR" as soon as a case is certified, and if the short term remedy (injunction) has immediate support, it would be fine, and then they could put out a long term solution as normal. I think its really important, though, that it stay that the Remedy Committee itself has no "body" power but to help guide the community. Lawrence § t/e 16:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I see what you're aiming at. In that case, I support this process. Hopefully it can be running as soon as possible to help lift off the backlog at WP:RFM. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 16:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] a few examples?

how would this work for 'The Troubles', or 'aluminum vs aluminium', or anything about palestine, or about images of mohammed? Dan Beale-Cocks 00:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you're going for the singular hardest problems on Wikipedia, the answer is: I don't know. How well has any other process fared, there? For some, the most extreme ones, there may be no perfect solution. This isn't meant to be a cure for cancer--it's meant to be chemotherapy or dialysis, if that makes sense. Lawrence § t/e 04:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it can work. It will cause divides, and wiki wars among different views. I can see the vandal count increase. Good in theory...Thright (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Divides, and wars? Like every other process that POV warriors take over? The idea is that from the crucial opening 2/3 of this process, the involved warriors are excluded, to allow the rest of the community to gauge the problem from "outside". Lawrence § t/e 04:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Opening 2/3 or closing 1/3? Glass half empty or half full? WHo decideds who to exclude? Vote for the NDP is like throwing your vote away? See my point, inclustion leads to exclustion. Technology should be the solution here and not the problem. Let everyone have a voice, and in the end majority rules. SIMPLE and PURE. Good idea but it will not work.Thright (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
What you advocate is what we have now, the useless squall of crowds and mob rule. That can barely scale now, let alone a year from now. Involved, non-neutral, biased people SHOULD be excluded from deciding if a problem is valid. Or else everyone has a voice, and majority rule will let any gang of editors get rid of any user they don't like. Lawrence § t/e 06:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

How about one example where this process would help? Even a hypothetical one would be nice. I'm not really seeing the point to this whole proposal or what problems it's supposed to fix. It just looks like more bureaucracy. It definitely doesn't look like a "very simple three-step system." --Pixelface (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

To mention some recent cases, some would be patently unsuited for RfR. From RFAR, the Mantanmoreland and IRC cases, for example, would not have been suited for the RfR treatment. Durova's case, if caught early on before everyone on Earth blew it up wildy, could have been; the Giano facets of that case would not have been. Two cases I was involved with, Bluemarine and Waterboarding, would have been ideally suited for an RfR (and I would have had to recuse from certifying either case--and even if I were on the RC, which I have no intention of running for, I would had to have recused there). They were both simple behavioral/content matters that didn't really need the weight of Arbcom I don't think. Homepathy could have worked through here.
The specific case that got me finally wanting to draft this idea that has been bubbling in my head was the recent topic ban and Arbcom appeal of that ban by User:Whig. See his appeal here, now removed from the RFAR page, for details. The initial ban discussion came through like a lightning rod, and he was set to be outright banned for his history, when I posted a suggestion of a very aggressive topic ban instead, and then the consensus shifted to be split between a full ban and a topic ban. I posited that we defer to the lesser and he got a 6 month ban. That discussion exploded fast, with partisans on all sides having at each other. Something had to be done--there was clear and demanding consensus that he had to leave or be restricted. If that were done in an RfR, it would have been far more orderly, and the same basic consensus from uninvolved folks would have arisen, and the same basic result, without all the chaos and hoo ha. These discussions--is there consensus to probation this, ban him, restrict her, limit this, etc., are always going to be here, but there is no method at all in place besides rambling out of control multi-sectioned discussions on AN and ANI that eventually fork to a subpage that no-one but partisans and the odd admin watchlist.
This is intended to fix that. Lawrence § t/e 17:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No need

The idea is good but since this is a community it goes against the wiki spirit. Everyone has a voice, and everyone should be heard. By limiting the number of people who can give input limits the number of good ideas that may come about. Community = everyone, not just a select few.Thright (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee disproves this. The system is not closed, as proposed, and is strictly in the wiki spirit. It's not like the remedy drafters will sit there and ignore suggestions on the talk page. Or do you mean that "involved" or "non-neutral" editors are excluded from certification? Depreciating biased opinions are certainly within our "ways", if so, in determining consensus. Lawrence § t/e 04:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee - in theory the same, in pratice different.Thright (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it bad that the cases would only be certified by uninvolved people? Lawrence § t/e 06:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Going along with Thright, the ArbCom the last resort for a reason. Taking a case to ArbCom very clearly takes the situation out of the hands of the community, which is why they will only accept a case if there have been previous steps to resolve it, or if incredibly severe where community action would be insufficient or inappropriate. The ArbCom exists as a final authority on severe issues - even in a community-run project like this, you need some sort of "Supreme Court" to make sure the big issues don't break the whole project down into anarchy.
This step (RfR) would be lower down on the DR scale, taking the larger community out of the picture before it would be completely necessary. It sounds as though your "certification" system would allow anyone to get involved, but once certified, most of those editors are going to get cut out of the actual decision-making process, which makes it completely pointless to have them get involved in the first place. You are basically creating a lower-level ArbCom that simply has more people involved in the final decision, and a specified time limit to finish each case. While the latter idea could be something the ArbCom may want to consider implementing (since it took a month to get rid of that ridiculous injunction that was crippling AfD), the former is not necessary and still imposes a limit at a lower level, something which is not necessary and could be harmful. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The larger community is never taken out of the picture--only "involved" editors are taken out of the picture at the crucial stages of evaluating the merit of the case and problem, and in writing up suggestions for the best course of action. The entire community then does what it feels is best based on the recommendations. This literally is just a method to get the best, most neutral, more involved analysis of a problem without having to go all the way to the AC. Lawrence § t/e 18:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Uh, I don't think so....
"the Remedy Committee will draft their suggested solutions [...] Only members of the Committee that are neutral may help draft remedies for a given case."
Sounds pretty restrictive to me - I can maybe understand pulling out the involved editors (although even they should be able to provide some input so the "remedy" isn't completely unfeasible), but you're cutting the community out of the process that decides what to do. Yes, the community then picks the best of several of these plans, but you still only have a select few creating these plans. The community is taken out of the picture, and at a crucial step. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Only members of the Committee that are neutral may help draft remedies for a given case."
There you go, Comittee members draft the solutions. What Lawrence is referring to is that only uninvolved editors can CERTIFY a case and determine a decision. The only part of the process restricted to the committee is making suggestions. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 00:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Parent's description here is more succint than mine and spot on. Lawrence § t/e 17:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clique busting

It just occurred to me that this process, by requiring certification and drafting of uninvolved and/or neutral (if that becomes a factor) editors could easily break the power of any "cliques" that may have formed over a certain dispute, allowing a clean review of it. This can clean out a lot of messes, potentially. Thoughts? Lawrence § t/e 06:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. It breaks up the groups of users that are always agreeing with each other and have the same thoughts. It allows a more realistic and rounded discussion. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 13:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Except we're then creating another clique, the group that gets to decide all of these cases. You're causing a new problem to (theoretically) fix an old one. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Wrong, completely wrong. There is no "deciding" clique. The certification/drafting process literally just presents neutral and uninvolved suggestions to the community--it's up the community then, to decide to act on those--or to take something else. The remedies are certainly not binding unless the community decides to make them so. Lawrence § t/e 18:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The reason that cliques exist now is because they all share the same ideas. If the community selects the best of ALL cliques, none will completely agree with another, thus removing the possibility of a new clique. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 23:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how you can congratulate yourself for proposing to create a ruling elite of 30 super admins. Addhoc (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Ruling elite of admins...? The RC idea is any user, adminship is no requirement, and they have no power but to suggest remedies. How do you mean? Lawrence § t/e 23:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Look at arbcom - there isn't a formal requirement they must be admins, but in practice they are. Also, in practice these elected admins would have have significant influence. Addhoc (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Potentially, but thats crystal balling. Any admin or non-admin that can drum up consensus to support a placement like this is already influential in any event, and trusted by at least a majority of their peers. Having a panel of vetted, trusted users cooking up suggestions for action is not a bad thing, though. The community, again, does not need to follow through on that. I've had suggestions I've made become codified on ANI--see the sanction on User:Whig that I wrote, and that passed an Arbcom appeal just now. I'm not an admin. I'm not sure why the idea of a trusted huge group helping to come up with fair suggestions is a scary thing. Lawrence § t/e 17:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Lawrence, you are continually contradicting yourself. You say here that the remedies aren't binding unless they are made binding, yet on the main page you say that this makes "trusted, basically final decisions," and above here that "anyone dicking around in violation of THESE sanctions would be on a fast track to nastiness." You here say that adminship is no requirement for the RC, but then above you say it's "a mix of admins and non-admins by design"
And another point which I'm not sure has been brought up - who are we "trusting" to decide what consensus actually is? I don't know if you've ever been to AfD, but sometimes consensus is somewhat hard to judge. This is why we have admins go through RfA's, so see if we trust them enough to make these tough decisions. You're talking about having non-admins make decisions on consensus which could (potentially) affect the editing access or rights of users, when a remedy includes a ban or block. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this - Being an admin is no big deal, but deciding who is an admin is. Your plan could potentially allow people to abuse tools they don't have, and I don't see how this procedure is going to make consensus any more clear. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I can see three areas where consensus is judged. The first is the declaration that an editor is non-neutral, at the beginning when a dispute is being certified - not sure how to deal with that one. The second is the selection of a proposed remedy to forward to the community. This might be a clerk system similar to Arbcom, where a volunteer would move any proposal with X committee members in favor from Proposed to Submitted, or whatever. Submitted remedies would be open to community approval during week 3 of the process. The third area is that approval process, where the list of remedies for a dispute is forwarded to the community. There, maybe a percentage or other measurement could be used to judge community support - in this case, I believe it would only be a yea/nay decision. Similar to Arbcom, the committee might see fit to offer alternative remedies, such as 2a. "Editors are limited to 1RR for 1 month" and 2b. "Editors are limited to 1RR for 3 months", letting the community set the length of a particular remedy. The structure of the committee would determine some of these issues as well - with a 30 person committee, 7 on the list might be assigned to a case, with the next two assigned to clerk the case and determine consensus. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd also ask who decides which members of the committee are involved? (Although that strikes me as much less of a problem than determining which editors are neutral enough to certify the initial dispute. The problem is it needs to be a simple test in order to make the process move quickly, but somehow still has to assess something as complex as neutrality). Then there's still the case of deciding how to gauge committee consensus on the proposals suggested by the committee. If it's !voting, then my fear is that this essentially reduces to a moderated version of votes for banning. --Bfigura (talk) 02:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts

Hi. I've just found out about this, and it's a really great idea with one caveat: that it doesn't completely supplant the current DR process. I think this idea is great for an early step in solving a problem, and it could definitely head off the escalation of a dispute. However, this can't solve all problems, hence why we need the Mediation Committee and Arbitration Committee, MedCab, RfC, and all that. Processes like this can be quite effective, especially in some situations where I can't see this process working. Just my 2 cents. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - as I'm reading it, this could almost be called Requests for Compromise, as that's what's being requested. Typically, if the "community" approves a sanction on ANI or elsewhere, it's really a bold admin offering and idea that does not garner any opposition. In this case, a group of editors (admins and non-admins, I presume) would look at the dispute and come up with ideas for resolving it, either through compromise, parole, restriction, or whatever. The community then says "Yes, we agree that this is a reasonable reaction to this dispute" and positively approves remedies. As an aside, I can see a version of this process working for content disputes - Editor A wants X, Editor B wants Y, so a proposed remedy might be combination version Z. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I really saw this coming up along the realm of
(everything like ANI, 3O, noticeboards, Medcab, etc.) > RfC/RfR > AC.
Like that. Lawrence § t/e 17:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

  • In reality, how would this differ from Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation (other than it has less enforcement bite)?
  • What is to stop a 'clique' of so called Editors from only working on this project, thus being impartial to any arisen conflict? How would you stop the creation of this 'clique'? Would SockChecks be conducted upon the 'elected jury' and random votes in their favour?
  • How do you propose to measure success/failure of this Process during the trial phase? What's the bar marking a successful trial phase?
  • What is an Editors recourse should mediation fail and/or disagreement still exist? Please spell out an Editors next step ("Remedies may be appealed through various existing channels." is less than informative or useful.)

Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 17:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In order...
  • Differs from Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation in that on that, anyone could drive through any recommendations, with an overwhelming consensus--even by involved partisans. This is set up to try to stop that happening, to cut the lynch mobs off as much as possible by limiting who can certify cases and draft remedies to uninvolved/neutral folks.
  • In regards to Checkuser, that's for Checkusers as always to determine. But as with any discussions, if random unified new accounts all show up together, that's usually a green light for checkusers to do their thing. As far as some Neutrality Clique emerging, that's the sort of social phenomenon you can't really predict, but I can't see it happening. Working on the Arbcom isn't exactly "fun". Working on this, under what amounts to a fairly liberal deadline, is probably going to be even less "fun". Especially considering that at least on the Arbcom, you get some status and authority. Here, you get a ringing endorsement that people trust you, and then they still might toss out your suggestions.
  • So then what would be the Election schedule, or term on the jury. Any Impeachment process?
  • Assuming we have a solid pool of a Remedy Committee or panel, or whatever it's named, my initial thought was 20 people at first--a big pool, and a big pool would enable a wide range of views and experience to be present. Two year terms I was thinking. They would be year one. At the end of year one, we get another 20 for 40 total. Then we cycle. If the need ever grows to need more people (unlikely, but never say never) we could just make the next year 30 people, or 40, or whatever. Or, open elections. That's stuff to sort out later, for long term, though, after the initial 20 are in. I suppose if an "impeachment" were ever needed, an RfR would be the most fair way to gauge it. ;) Lawrence § t/e 18:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


  • Success/failure on the three phases is pretty simple. A problem is presented. The uninvolved community certifies with a ringing endorsement that yes, this problem is valid and needs attention here. The RC draws up their recommended solutions. The community then endorses those solutions with a ringing endorsement, and whatever disruption that existed before is now stopped or curbed. That would be successful. There aren't any set numbers--if enough people endorse a remedy or certify a case, it should be fairly obvious, and the internal bar for that will sort itself out over time as the process matures.
  • So would a: Problem presented, certification problem is valid, then failure to decide a unified course of action, be a success or failure? Please, specify a success/failure so we all are measuring this Project with the same yardstick. We all know whatever "will sort itself out over time" in real life, if left, will never get decided (or worse, argued Ad nauseam ) in WP's consensus driven environment. If you set the mark, others may disagree, but there is then a starting point for discussion and re-evaluation of the results (if req.).
  • If I present a problem with you, and it fails initial certification, then we know the problem is not that important or critical to Wikipedia at that time--this could play a role in Arbcom possibly accepting the case, or how the community gauges it later, since it was essentially a review of the severity of the case. If it's accepted, but the panel fails to agree on a suggested solution(s) after a week, and somehow deadlocks, then it's probably a good bet this case should go to the Arbcom next. If the panel comes up with solutions, but the community fails to accept them or endorse them, and the community deadlocks, it should definitely go to Arbcom next. The critical phase as I see it is that initial certification. If 30+ people say a problem is severe enough for a valid RfR, it will go to a full AC case if the RfR process can't save it beforehand. Lawrence § t/e 18:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


  • For appeals, if for some reason a case got no attention, and got a crappy certification, crappy solutions, and a crappy endorsement after from like 5 people, and someone tried to enforce that, it would be pretty easy to overturn via a solid AN or ANI thread. If it's a widely certified case, good remedies that are widely endorsed, then unless you can trump that prior consensus via ANI (or maybe an appeal RfR?) you'd want to go the Arbcom, which is where all sticky appeals end up anyway.
  • You should edit the Project page to state this course of action. Remember, just because We know what we are doing, does not mean Newbies do.
  • Sorry, yeah, it needs revising still a bit for that. Feel free to tweak it--I really don't want people to see this as the Lawrence Proposal. Lawrence § t/e 18:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Answer your questions? Lawrence § t/e 17:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Not compleatly, but with more work a solution may present itself from your Proposal. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 18:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Making a submit button preload a talk page template

I started drafting the basic format of an RfR page, which is super raw right now (feel free to jump in, anyone). It's at Wikipedia:Requests for remedies/main page. I'm stuck on how to make the Submit button there also load the talk page from a template. The template that will be loaded is at Wikipedia:Requests for remedies/Template. How do I make it also load a page at Wikipedia talk:Requests for remedies/Template at the same time? I was figuring it would have sections like

Remedy drafting
Recusal motions
General discussion

Anyone have any clues? Feel free to attack that template as well--it's just the RFC template right now. Lawrence § t/e 18:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what do you mean, you want the templates to load on the same page? Or do you want one template preloaded on a case page and the talk page template loaded on the talk page? Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 21:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
As in, if I submit an RfR on myself, it will make Wikipedia:Requests for remedies/Lawrence Cohen. I want it (if possible) to also whip up Wikipedia talk:Requests for remedies/Lawrence Cohen with some really simple formatting, is all. If not, it's no big deal and anyone can format it after. Lawrence § t/e 21:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not think it is technically possible. I think when somebody opens an RfA, a bot does something like that, but making a bot is not really the biggest of our problems right now (we are going to need a bot, though, if we expect this process to work). So, for now, the user will just have to create is separately. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 00:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Still not getting it

After reading this page, I'm still scratching my head. I don't understand what the perceived need is -- that is, what, exactly, is supposed to be broken -- nor why the adding yet another layer to the already confusingly complicated dispute resolution process would be better than fixing or adjusting one of the other layers. Could someone lay it out in words of two syllables or fewer? Or better, pretend you're explaining it to a newbie. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Or not. I gather this is a dead proposal then? —Quasirandom (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not dead, idle. I've been thinking about the various views people have put here, in how to make this proposal totally viable. Lawrence § t/e 14:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do not underestimate the simple solution

I have a fear this proposal will undermine the simplest and often best solution in most Wikipedia disputes, which is that one of the sides is simply right. This is from experience: I've done a lot of WP:3O, where most opinions come down to backing one side.. diplomatically. Offering all kinds of icky compromises is good for some problems, but it should not become a venue for the wrong party to get some kind of justification. User:Krator (t c) 12:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harsh, but...

This is only slightly better than Wikipedia:Requests for process. :( Stifle (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My understanding of how this process is supposed to work.

I'm not quite sure I get how this process is supposed to work. Let's try a "hypothetical" worked example. Please correct me if I have misunderstood anything.

1. User submits a Request for Remedies, (usually after failing to find agreement on the talk-page).

Let us say that I and User:Isaiahspokers get into a argument with the (hypothetical) user User:Imanegg over some edits to the Loyal and Fraternal Brotherhood of Aphids page. Being unable to resolve it, we take it to RfR.

2. Only neutral users over the next week certify the RfR to determine its validity. (Duration: 7 days)

So, over the next week, RfR junkies and random passersby discuss whether our dispute is significant enough to warrant an RfR. Let's say they think it is.

4. If someone disputes the claimed neutral nature of a Committee member, and consensus supports that challenge, recusal here is mandatory.

User:Imanegg argues that User:CommitteeMember234 should recuse himself, since he is not a member of the Aphids. After a week's discussion, the consensus is that this is not a valid reason for recusal.

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)

Here's what I'm not sure about; I see two possible interpretations here:

Interpretation 1: Over the third week, the Remedy Committee then looks into the article and makes the following suggestions:

A.1: User:Ben Standeven and User:Isaiahspokers are to be given a sound spanking and cautioned not to revert against consensus. A.2: User:Ben Standeven and User:Isaiahspokers are to banned from editing articles about fraternal orders named after parthenogenetic lifeforms. B.1: User:Imanegg is to be banned from editing articles about fraternal orders named after parthenogenetic lifeforms. B.2: User:Imanegg is to be commended for protecting Wikipedia from Islamic Wiccan propagandists.

Interpretation 2: Over the third week, the Remedy Committee then looks into the article and makes the following suggestions:

A: User:Ben Standeven is to be given a sound spanking, cautioned not to revert against consensus, and commended for enforcing WP:RS on Loyal and Fraternal Brotherhood of Aphids, and protecting Wikipedia from POV pushers. B: User:Isaiahspokers is to be given a sound spanking, cautioned not to revert against consensus, and commended for protecting Wikipedia from POV pushers. C: User:Imanegg is to banned from editing articles about fraternal orders named after parthenogenetic lifeforms.

[...]

6. The general community 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)

Interpretation 1: Over the fourth week, the aforementioned junkies and passersby, and also the editors to the Aphids page, collectively decide (as interpreted by the closing admin) that remedies A.1 and B.1 are supported, and remedies A.2 and B.2 are rejected.

Interpretation 2: Over the fourth week, the aforementioned junkies and passersby, and also the editors to the Aphids page, collectively decide (as interpreted by the closing admin) that the remedies are supported.

Result: Now any neutral admin may revert User:Imanegg's edits to the Aphids article, block him from editing if necessary, etc. Also, said admin may block me if I engage in excessive edit warring with other editors on Loyal and Fraternal Brotherhood of Aphids.

If this is an accurate description, I don't know that I approve; there seems to be a little too much !voting, as one of the other commentators said. Also it takes about the same time as an RfC would, with about the same result, except that the RfC ended with User:Imanegg leaving the topic on his own, sending in a sockpuppet, and getting blocked anyway.

Ben Standeven (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll

This is a non-binding straw poll to determine whether consensus exists to begin implementing this proposal and scoping out specific details. (It is not a vote to make this policy, just to see whether discussion should continue or the proposal should be rejected outright.) Please sign under one of the headings below. Discussion longer than a sentence or so should go in the Discussion section.

[edit] Yes, this proposal has merit

  1. Protonk (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Icewedge 05:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No, this proposal should be tagged {{rejected}}

  1. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Bfigura (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. As it currently stands, but see my comment below.Ben Standeven (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. I am going to have to say no for now. As much as I think this could work, I really do not think it will. Just remember the zeroeth law of Wikipedia: "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it can never work." 1 — Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 23:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Voting is evil

[edit] Discussion

  • Judging from his last comment on this page, it's looking like Lawrence wants to overhaul the proposal anyway, so maybe we should either wait until he does, or tell him to create a new proposal page. Ben Standeven (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rejected

I've tagged this as rejected as discussion has pretty much closed down with little or no consensus or support for implementation. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)