User:Ocaasi/DR

Motivation

 * Dispute resolution continues to be one of the most ineffective areas on Wikipedia
 * The inability to resolve disputes effectively contributes to ongoing user conduct issues which create a hostile and frustrating environment for all users
 * Improved dispute resolution would improve editor retention among some of our most active and experienced volunteers

Observations

 * Wikiquette alerts is broken. It doesn't work.  Separating conduct from content makes editors powerless to impact disputes.
 * Dispute resolution noticeboard is working. But it needs more teeth.
 * Mediation Committee is failing. It accepts few cases and resolves fewer.

Recommendations

 * 1) Close Wikiquette alerts, route conduct disputes to Dispute resolution noticeboard;
 * 2) Give Dispute resolution noticeboard clerks and Mediation Committee provisional binding powers (may be made longer with a Administrators' noticeboard discussion);
 * 3) DRN clerks' binding powers do apply to topic wide bans but with a limit of 1 month or until Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, or Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents overrules;
 * 4) Mediation Committee's clerks binding powers do apply to topic wide bans, but only for 3 months or until Arbitration Committee or Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents overrules;
 * 5) Dispute resolution noticeboard has a 14 day max with a goal of resolving within 7 days; After 14 days, Dispute resolution noticeboard then escalates to the Mediation Committee;
 * 6) Mediation Committee has a 2 month max; Mediation Committee then may escalate to the Arbitration Committee;
 * 7) Dispute resolution noticeboard clerks are approved by existing DRN clerks. (The first DRN clerks apply and are selected by Steven Zhang, or by the DRN volunteers, TBD)
 * 8) An Arbitration Committee member 'sits' on the Dispute resolution noticeboard and the Mediation Committee and can 'escalate' cases to Arbitration Committee when necessary;
 * 9) The Mediation Committee could overrule any provisional binding measure by the Dispute resolution noticeboard;
 * 10) The Arbitration Committee could overrule any provisional binding measure by the Dispute resolution noticeboard or the Mediation Committee; and
 * 11) A panel of 3 admins at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents could overrule any provisional binding measure by Dispute resolution noticeboard or the Mediation Committee.

To do

 * 1) Propose closing WQA at village pump.  (first draft a proposal citing data, rationale, and alternatives) Done.
 * 2) Increase DR volunteer activity by mailing out a newsletter to listed participants (draft newsletter first, obv.)

Review schedule
''This proposal should be floated widely before an Request for Comment. Here are some suggestions for that sequence.''


 * 1) Dispute resolution noticeboard volunteers
 * 2) Mediation Committee members
 * 3) Arbitration Committee members
 * 4) Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Administrators' noticeboard
 * 5) Second office hours
 * 6) Village Pump Proposals
 * 7) Jimbo's talk page
 * 8) Wikipedia-l
 * 9) Request for Comment

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in Dispute Resolution about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges of DR. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any messages, just remove your name from this list.

Background: Let's start with brief overview of the ecosystem of DR. Most disputes begin on a talk page. Policy specific questions are typically raised at a noticeboard, such as WP:BLPN (biographies of living persons), WP:RSN (reliable sources), WP:ORN (original research), WP:FRINGE (alternative beliefs/pseudoscience), WP:CP or WP:MCQ (copyright questions), WP:PM (mergers), WP:RM (page moves), WP:NN (notability), WP:ANI (administrator's incidents), or WP:AN3 (edit warring). User conduct issues often wind up at Wikiquette noticeboard while more serious situations warrant an WP:RFC/U. Small disputes often go through the lightweight third opinion process. More substantial disputes wind up at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Some complex questions can be resolved with an WP:RFC. More intractable issues arrive at the Mediation Committee. And, If all else fails, WP:ARBCOM often must levy a decision.

Research: One of the first steps in improving our DR processes has been getting good data. This process has been spearheaded by Steven Zhang whose 2012 Community Fellowship is focused on understanding and improving DR on Wikipedia. The first observation is that there are a lot of places where dispute resolution happens. Some of them are more extensive, better known, or more effective than others. One of the key purposes of this newsletter will be to present the best research and ideas we have about which options are working and what we as a community might do about the rest of them. In April 2012 Steven conducted a dispute resolution survey, among its findings, here were some highlights:
 * Over half of all respondents (and 80% of females) were older than 40.
 * 94% had requested assistance from a dispute resolution forum at some point, and were generally unhappy with their experiences in dispute resolution – only one in five were satisfied – however despite this 62% had participated in dispute resolution within the last year.
 * Requests for Comment is the most used dispute resolution forum, with
 * Opinions of dispute resolution were overall relatively negative - Arbitration was rated as the best dispute resolution forum by respondents – with one in three respondents rating it as good or better. In contrast, Wikiquette assistance was rated the worst – only 1 in 12 rated it as satisfactory.
 * Dispute resolution volunteers do so because they felt the process was critical to Wikipedia functioning, liked helping people or as payback for previous assistance.
 * Some respondents haven’t volunteered due to the unpleasantness of disputes, the prolonged nature of dispute resolution, or due to poor past experiences or a lack of knowledge in resolving disputes. *When asked about their personal experiences with dispute resolution, positive aspects were that their dispute was resolved, the examples set by volunteers and the positive behavior of their fellow participants, while negative aspects included the time it takes to resolve a dispute, and the potential for the the processes to become unfair - many citing the source of this unfairness as as administrators that became involved in the process.
 * The main problems given for dispute resolution are its complexity, its inaccessibility, and that there are too many resolution processes and not enough volunteers. Respondents want stricter action taken against problematic editors, a simplified, more accessible process where closure can be bought to a dispute quickly.

Recent data: The following table summarizes activity in several DR forums for the month of May 2012.


 * A follow-up of analysis is being done for August 2012, and The Olive Branch will summarize its findings once it comes out.

For Discussion: Is it time to close WQA? Please share your views.