Wikipedia:Requests for remedies: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:22, 15 March 2008

The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption.

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.

Process

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

The RfR process

User submits a Request for Remedies, (usually after failing to find agreement on the talk-page).
Only neutral users over the next week certify the RfR to determine it's validity. (Duration: 7 days)
» If someone disputes the claimed neutral nature of a certifier, and consensus supports that challenge, that certification !vote is struck.
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)
If someone disputes the claimed neutral nature of a Committee member, and consensus supports that challenge, recusal here is mandatory.
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.
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)
If initial certification fails, the RfR is done. If the final community certification fails, the RfR is done.
Remedies may be appealed through various existing channels.

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.

Requirements: have a username. Be trusted.
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.
Terms are for a single case (jury model) or up to two years. Community decides.
Recusal is done by the community or a judge chosen from arbcom (jury model), not by the recused person.
Members have no rights, powers or anything, beyond drafting remedies.

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:

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

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{proposed|[[WP:REMEDY]]}}
-{{proposal}}
-{{nutshell|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.}}
+{{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.
-''Request for Remedies - proposal for a way to handle complex, long term remedy issues for established users, outside of Arbitration. Doing this just raw here, please format as apporpriate. I'm just getting down ideas, and this is super-raw and will lead a lot of adjustment. The aim here is maxium "fairness". This is an offshoot of Request for Comments, a hybrid of it and the Arbitration Committee. An ultra-fair RFC with "teeth", built around simple layers of certification from only uninvolved users. It is meant to be a calm, slower deliberating process that the community can completely oversee.''
-==Purpose==
-A very simple three-step system that can make trusted, basically final decisions on very tricky or complex matters, based on evaluations from trusted, uninvolved users on a given case.
 ==Process==
@@ Line 11: / Line 8: @@
 ; The RfR process:
-# User submits a Request for Remedies.
+# User submits a Request for Remedies, (usually after failing to find agreement on the talk-page).
-# Only uninvolved users over the next week certify the RfR to determine it's validity.
+# Only neutral users over the next week certify the RfR to determine it's validity. ''(Duration: 7 days)''
-#: » If someone disputes the claimed uninvolved nature of a certifier, and consensus supports that challenge, that certification !vote is struck.
+#: » If someone disputes the claimed neutral nature of a certifier, and consensus supports that challenge, that certification !vote is struck.
-# 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 uninvolved may help draft remedies for a given case.
+# 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)''
-#: » If someone disputes the claimed uninvolved nature of a Committee member, and consensus supports that challenge, recusal here is mandatory.
+# If someone disputes the claimed neutral nature of a Committee member, and consensus supports that challenge, recusal here is mandatory.
 # 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.
-# 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 uninvolved admin can choose to use their tools as they feel consensus supports their use.
+# 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)''
 # If initial certification fails, the RfR is done. If the final community certification fails, the RfR is done.
-# Remedies may be appealed through various channels, where consensus supports their appeal. As of this time, the Arbitration Committee remains the final and ultimate court of appeal on English Wikipedia.
+# Remedies may be appealed through various existing channels.
 ==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.
 # Requirements: have a username. Be trusted.
-# In the first year, we'll hold a simple election. Nothing even close to AC or RFA in scale/fanciness. You self nominate, and we have a simple up and down support/oppose. Over process here, especially in the first year, is pointless. The top 20 by percentage of support are the first class of the RC.
+# 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.
-# Terms are two years.
+# Terms are for a single case (jury model) or up to two years. Community decides.
+# Recusal is done by the community or a judge chosen from arbcom (jury model), not by the recused person.
-# Recusals: all RC are expected to recuse for involvement in a case. Rejecting or fighting recusal, if someone calls for it and consensus supports it, is not acceptable, and could lead to a swift RfR to be removed from the Committee. The "Uninvolved" clauses on cerftification and drafting are the keys to this system working and most important.
-# After one year, we elect another twenty. After that, we renew: 20 a year.
 # Members have ''no'' rights, powers or anything, beyond drafting remedies.
+== Request for remedies as a part of dispute resolution ==
-==Remedy Committee==
+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.
-Any user, admin or not, can be on the Remedy Committee. The RC should be a large group, so many people are available--perhaps 20 users. RC should not be a permanent position. It does not require any kind of RFA level scrutiny, since they have no power but to make suggestions based on the fact that they are trusted. Two year terms? A very simple up and down !vote. The RC will have no mail list, or secret quarters--all deliberation is made on the RFR page in public. Another 20 users after one year, so year two will have a pool of 40 people on the Committee, and so that it cycles through regularly with new and different users. If more than 20 apply, then top 20 by percentage get aboard. This is, again, not the AC, and being on the RC is less than a big deal. However, it shouldn't be an open ended number.
+Request for remedies is intended to complement the existing dispute resolution process by addressing three basic points:
-RC members have no extra authority in any way, shape or form, beyond the trust granted them by the community to help draft remedies on cases they are not involved with.
+# Are the issues portrayed valid and accurately portrayed?
+# What are the best solutions and remedies to these problems, if they are valid?
+# Does the community support these suggested remedies?