User:Gatoclass/SB/DYK disputes

I think it's become clear in recent times that some parts of the DYK process are not working as smoothly as they should. In particular, there have been a number of acrimonious disputes over the last 18 months or so which have distracted from or disrupted the smooth functioning of DYK, and which have caused considerable anxiety for all participants and often left behind a residue of ill-feeling. I don't believe this situation can be allowed to continue any longer. We need a clear and transparent process for resolving DYK disputes in order to avoid disruption and the perception, real or imagined, that certain parties are being treated unfairly or that the system is being gamed for advantage.

To that end I am proposing to create a new page which will outline a formal process for dealing with DYK disputes. The following proposal is based on what I believe has been prevailing practice at DYK, but which has never been formally set down, partly from a reluctance to engage in instruction creep, and partly because the DYK rules often lag well behind prevailing practices for a variety of reasons. The proposal also includes some new ideas designed to clarify some grey areas related to such disputes.

This proposal is based upon the assumption that main page content is too important to be decided by simple and often fleeting majorities at T:TDYK, and the belief that the DYK process itself, together with chronic understaffing, often leads to a situation where hooks and articles do not always get the kind of scrutiny that in an ideal world, they would.

BTW, when commenting on this proposal, please comment in the "discussion" section. Don't mess up the proposal itself by leaving comments after one or another of the various points proposed.

Basic concepts
The current DYK process generally works well most of the time, and there isn't much need to change it. The process described below is intended only for situations where a user anticipates that opposition to a hook or article is likely to lead to extended debate, or where it becomes clear that an extended debate will be necessary to resolve the issues.

Definitions

 * 1) Where the terms "involved" and "uninvolved" are employed in the processes outlined below, they apply only in cases where an article is in a topic area subject to special arbcom sanctions. In all such cases, the definitions of "involved" and "uninvolved" will conform to the general definition given by arbcom, with the following exception: a user who is not otherwise involved in the topic area in question, but who only engages in editing or discussing such articles in relation to their fitness for DYK, will be considered to be uninvolved. This is in order to encourage maximum participation of uninvolved editors in the dispute resolution process.
 * 2) In all cases where a !vote is taken in any of the processes outlined below, involved users as defined above will be permitted to leave comments but not permitted to cast a !vote.

Hooks

 * 1) In case of a significant dispute about a hook, the disputant will leave a note at the relevant T:TDYK thread stating his intention to resort to this dispute resolution process. Discussion will thereafter continue at WT:DYK. If a hook cannot be agreed upon after three days, the article creator or nominator will submit his preferred hook to a !vote. If it fails to get at least a 2/3rds majority in favour, it will be rejected. Any other party except the article nominator/creator may then propose a hook. Whichever hook gets the most !votes will be the hook selected. Hook ballots will be open no less than 48 hours.
 * 2) In cases where a hook has already been added to the queue, any user may remove the hook from the queue and return it to T:TDYK, announcing at the same time that he has a significant concern and thereby initiating this process. The reasoning behind this clause is twofold. Firstly, the dispute resolution process is automatic so it doesn't matter who removes it from the queue. Secondly, inappropriate hooks commonly make it to the queue due to the ongoing difficulty updaters have in making considered judgements about every hook available for promotion, and uninvolved users may not be around in time to remove a hook before it reaches the mainpage.
 * 3) In cases where the hook has already made it to the main page, only an uninvolved admin will be permitted to remove the hook from the update in order to prevent unnecessary disruption to the main page. If a hook is removed from the main page by an uninvolved admin, this dispute resolution procedure will be initiated in exactly the same way as for a hook removed from the queue or challenged at T:TDYK.

Articles

 * 1) In case of a significant dispute about an article, the disputant will leave a note at the relevant T:TDYK thread outlining the general substance of his concern or concerns, and stating that he intends to resort to this dispute resolution process. He will then inform the article creator or nominator at their talk page of the initiation of the process. Discussion will thereafter normally continue at the talk page of the article in question. If the disputant thinks the issues are fairly straightforward and not likely to result in prolonged debate, he may also opt to have the discussion at T:TDYK or WT:DYK. All users are encouraged to participate in the discussion regardless of where it is held.
 * 2) As an alternative to the previous step, a user may seek to have an article rejected immediately, if he thinks it clearly unsuitable for main page exposure. Accordingly a quick !vote will be initiated at WT:DYK. If after 48 hours all users with the exception of the creator or nominator have !voted for rejection, the article will be rejected forthwith.
 * 3) When a user announces that he has significant concerns about an article or hook as outlined above, all interested parties will be expected to make their best endeavours to resolve the outstanding issues. The dispute resolution process will normally last a maximum of five days, or until the hook reaches the bottom of the page at T:TDYK, whichever is longer. Naturally, if the dispute is resolved more quickly, the hook can be promoted earlier. If a dispute about an article or hook breaks out and is resolved, and then a second dispute breaks out, the five day/bottom of the queue window will not be reset, in other words all disputes about the article will be expected to be resolved within five days of the original challenge or when the hook reaches the bottom of the queue, whichever is longer. This is to ensure that hooks are not held up indefinitely and that disputes are resolved in a reasonable period.
 * 4) In cases where a dispute has not been resolved in the given time period, either side of the dispute may call for a !vote at WT:DYK. To ensure adequate community participation, a note may be left at WP:AN/I by any of the involved parties informing the wider community of the !vote. Either or both parties to the dispute may leave a message at WT:DYK summarizing why they believe the hook should/should not be promoted. !Voters will also be expected to read through the article talk page in order to thoroughly familiarize themselves with the debate before !voting.
 * 5) (Alternative to step below). The hook or article must get a supermajority of support in the !vote in order to be accepted for promotion. A supermajority in this instance will be defined as a 2/3rds majority, that is, two thirds of !voters must agree the hook/article is acceptable for promotion. A mere majority will not be considered sufficient as if there is a significant split between supporters and opposers, it is very likely that the article is too contentious for the main page. The !vote will be open for at least 48 hours to allow a sufficient number of participants to have their say.
 * 6) (Alternative to step above). Should three uninvolved users (per definition above) !vote against promotion, the article will not be promoted. This is a more conservative option to 8. above, and is more like the way we have resolved such disputes in the past.

Premature iconification
If any user attempts to verify or disqualify a hook or article at T:TDYK that is currently subject to this dispute resolution process, that action will be ignored. If after a warning, a user persists in attempting to approve or disqualify articles or hooks that are currently the subject of dispute resolution as outlined at this page, they may be banned from further participation at T:TDYK.

Revisions
Should this process fail to result in sensible or desirable outcomes, it will be subject to revision or scrapping as appropriate.