User:The Wordsmith/Dispute Resolution revamp
The purpose of this subpage is to explore deprecated forms of Dispute Resolution on the English Wikipedia, determine what worked, what didn't, and if the ideas behind them can be retooled into solutions that will work by modern standards while addressing their failings.
Reasons it was shut down
[edit]- Inactivity
- Redundant with other DR methods like the Mediation Committee, WP:3O and WP:DRN
- Those media are dead or dying now, so this would seem to be moot
- Format was extremely outdated, looked like nobody had updated it since 2006. Which is completely true.
- Intended to be completely informal, but process creep set in over time. Less freedom for mediators to go out and do their thing.
How to fix it
[edit]to be filled in later
What worked
[edit]- Was the best way to comprehensively address poor user conduct.
- Was better than Noticeboards for examining a pattern, especially where no single incident was enough for an ANI consensus.
- Allowed the subject to receive feedback, positive and negative, about their editing history and to participate in finding a solution.
- When it failed to produce a meaningful result, an RFC/U was often important in demonstrating to the Arbitration Committee that prior attempts at community-based dispute resolution had failed.
What went wrong
[edit]- Too easy to initiate one.
- Only required two editors in good standing to certify.
- Became a witch hunt.
- Open Season on anyone who did anything remotely contentious.
- Lacked teeth
- Arbcom occasionally desysopped as a result of consensus there, but that was exceedingly rare.
- Sanctions rarely occurred after closing one, even if consensus saw a problem.
- The subject was under no requirement to participate if they chose not to.
- Same type of toxic atmosphere and regular participants as at the drama boards, often resulting in hurt feelings on the part of the subject and a few flameouts.
How to fix it
[edit]to be filled in later
to be filled in later