Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dispute resolution/Overview

This is a working draft of a possible revision to the structure of dispute resolution. Basically, this should be what we think the DR system should be. In the wiki spirit, everybody is welcome to change the draft. AGK [•] 20:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The assumption here is that, for each sub-section, the DR forum is superior to a forum in a section earlier in the page. For instance, if the sub-sections were 3O>RFC>MedCab>MedCom, then the assumption is that 3O, for the purposes of the proposal, is the first step of DR, and RFC is the second, and so on. AGK [•] 20:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To come. AGK [•] 20:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User conduct grievances are grievances relating to the behaviour of an established contributor. Conduct grievances do not include sock-puppets, vandalism-only accounts, editors who are abusing BLPs, and related problems, which should instead be directed urgently to an administrator.

In addition to the below phases of responding to user conduct grievances, the following rules perpetually apply:

• Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot

In dealing with an editor whose behaviour you take objection to, the first step is to disengage from that editor:

If the behavior of another editor has upset you, consider doing something else for a little while. Take a walk. Do some laundry. Surf the web. Allowing some time for both you and the other editor to cool off makes it much more likely the dispute will be resolved amicably. If your next move is carefully considered and rational, rather than ill-considered, you'll give the impression of being a more reasonable person

— Wikipedia:Truce#Take it slow

Here, I'd like the next step to be a "WQA 2.0". We should have a process broadly similar to WQA, but called something more appropriate, like "Conduct complaints", that is staffed by administrators and other experienced users. Hopefully the new process would resolve problematic conduct as soon as it starts, and be a first port of call—much like WQA, but without the stupid name and the impression of being a toothless/ineffective process. AGK [•] 20:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea because there's no consensus on the "teeth": see Wikipedia:Incivility blocks. It become just another ANI dramafest. WQA 2.0 should be revised to make it clear it has no teeth whatsoever. Gerardw (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all realise it. Disputes on Wikipedia all over the place, quite often not where they should be, and it becomes quite hard for mediators / "helpers" to keep track. While we don't need to micromanage every Wikipedia dispute, quite often disputes go to ANI when they really should go to MedCab or an RFC. Perhaps we could create a new noticeboard, where we would have users being able to post their enquiry there and get assistance as to the best forum for their issue. I see part of the problem being a) ANI getting clogged up with disputes, so perhaps part of the new noticeboard could take away some of these disputes from ANI and b) Users not knowing the correct place to take their issues. Perhaps the noticeboard could have a similar format to SPI (with "clerks" to make sure discussions don't get out of hand, stay civilised) but with users not having to post with funky templates. A simple comment about what the dispute, who is involved, what has been happening, and then we can point them in the right direction. These are just a few ideas in my head so far, needs refinement. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 19:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also crossposted to Village pump idea lab. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 19:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]