Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution reform

So, if I support this idea, how can I help getting it instituted? Travb 17:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An idea for speedy policy enforcement

I have one idea to add. A bit like RfC but more focussed. A lot of disputes get into problems because of essentially an argument where one user asserts that another users actions are against wiki policy, or both users mutually assert this. There is little way to address that promptly so it escalates. if that could be cut off at the root, it would get a lot easier. This is a way to do it:

A page similar to "speedy delete" or "VfD", where any user can post some examples and diffs, and ask for an opinion "is this a breach of wikipedia policy".
All other users (or some class of user?) can then vote or comment, as with speedy delete or VfD.
If a matter is deemed by a vote to be a violation of a wiki policy, then in the case of repetition, the user can post a request on the already-existing admin enforcement requested page for an administrator to apply a speedy 48 hour ban.

The advantages of this as I see it:

It is fast: any user can raise an issue immediately.
It is hard to manipulate: DIFFs must be cited and the only opinion available is "is this DIFF a breach of policy?"
It is not partisan: any or all sides in a dispute can ask for an opinion on whether specific DIFFs of their choosing show a breach of policy or not
It is relatively neutral: it's not asking if a user is wrong, but only whether specific DIFF citation/s are in clear and verified breach of policy.
It allows for speedy deterence: a 48 hour ban for repetition is too short to hurt anyone, but will effectively deter constant policy breakers since it can be repeated.
The deterrent ban also cannot be manipulated easily, since the user is only able to request it, the request must be executed by an admin who checks the original matter voted on and the current DIFF and agrees it's a repetition.
It will apply to both editorial and personality policy issues
It defuzes issues early by adding a lower level disciplinary step
It is simple to implement and easy to understand.
It will scale well, and can handle effectively a wide range of disputes that at present escalate to ArbCom.
It promotes by its votes, a wider awareness of wiki policy and its application.

FT2 07:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No refs

I'd like to find out the background for this reform. What leads to using this form, is it historical, which papers or articles were consulted? What are the game theoretical consequences? What are the System analytical consequences? To what extend does this proposed reform scale?

A thorough mathematical analysis (though nice) may not be nescesary, but please provide at least some intuitive insight. :-)

Kim Bruning 18:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original author was Stevertigo (talk); you may wish to contact him on the matter. anthonycfc ^[talk] 00:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]