Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars/Guidelines

These are the tentative guidelines for the working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars.

These are very much in draft form at present, and is also the first time a working group of this kind has been established to consider an issue on Wikipedia.

Accordingly, the guidelines below should be viewed as tentative and not cast in stone, and may be significantly edited as experience is gained and activity progresses. They are all subject to change.

Setting of guidelines
The guidelines are established by the Committee, to give the Working Group guidance in approaching its task:
 * "The membership, structure, and procedures of the group shall be subject to the approval of the Committee."

Membership
Membership interest was open to any editor in good standing, meeting the following tentative criteria (broadly interpreted and subject to improvement):
 * 1) A significant and relevant editing history suggesting "hands-on" experience relevant to the group.
 * 2) A record of conduct or activity that suggests an ability to work well and constructively with others as part of such a group.
 * 3) 'Drive' to see approaches found, and to "make this work".

Goal
The group's ideal aim is to find for the community how such edit wars "work", and how we may better obtain stable high quality neutral articles from topics related to them, that appropriately balance the various significant views in the field.

Principles

 * 1) Membership and membership changes - By Arbcom decision on its own discretion, or following ratification by Arbcom of a group decision.
 * 2) Arbcom to be informed - The discussions may take place in any way the members wish, but the Committee would like to be copied in or have access to the discussion. From time to time the Committee or its members may have comments or suggestions, but unless given formally by the Committee, should be taken as ideas to consider, only.
 * 3) Output - The results of each stage will be a summary report (findings, opinions, views) and backing details (diffs, specific examples and comments etc), which will be provided to the Committee.
 * 4) Working methods - The group may decide much of its own working methods, including public or private discussion, internal structure, chair or no chair, and so on, and may ask for resources or help if needed.
 * 5) Consensus operation - The group should aim towards a consensus understanding and view. Minority views and hypotheticals/speculatives may be appended or included but should be indicated to be such.
 * 6) Trust and professionalism - The workings and considerations of the group as a whole, are by default private to the group, unless and until the group as a whole agrees otherwise. In doubt, Arbcom may be asked.
 * 7) Private external consultations - It is likely that members will want to consult others they know and trust, or may have useful insight. Most matters being discussed are (individually) not "secret". But be aware that the group members may have an expectation of privacy for sensitive discussions, and ensure any such discussions meet reasonable discretion.
 * 8) Public actions - public actions such as notices, RFCs, seeking of evidence, views or feedback, or consultation work with the community, should be drafted and then ratified by Arbcom.
 * 9) Scope - It is not a requirement to solve or address any matter unless it actually impacts on editing, and then only to the degree it has an impact on the Wiki.
 * 10) Commitment - The group is being convened to examine a persistent and systemic issue that derives in some cases from bitter real-world views and enmities. Members should be prepared to see it through, and are thanked in advance for their willingness to do so.
 * 11) Varied and new thinking - Open mindedness will be important, since this is a problem many users have not yet fully addressed. Accordingly, new or unusual approaches are encouraged, and members are encouraged to 'brainstorm' and consider new ideas both positively and critically, for possibilities they may contain and drawbacks they may have.
 * 12) Transparency - The main reports will be released publicly at some point. Sensitive information, for example evidence submitted by editors with an expectation of privacy, may be removed from the public reports, if that is the groups' suggestion.

Milestones

 * See below for more on what each milestone might cover.

This will include a look at "POV warring" in general, as well.
 * 1) Bed in - decide basic working approaches, make decisions how the issue/s will be approached and how the group will work, and identify the abilities its members can bring to the discussion.
 * Result - A brief summary of its initial working approach decisions and confirmation the members have agreement what they are doing, and roughly, how they will do it.
 * Expected time - 1 to 2 weeks.
 * 1) Gain an understanding of these kinds of edit wars, that encompasses the approaches, behaviors and goals of editors' actual behaviors, and the history of the wars.
 * Result - a summary in tactical general terms, of the features of such wars. General summary for public, details (including any "who did what" examples) in private to Arbcom.
 * Expected time - 1 to 3 months.
 * 1) Generate a range of significantly varied ideas of different approaches.
 * Result - a variety of approaches and an evaluation/appraisal of each.
 * Expected time - 4 to 6 weeks.
 * 1) Consult with the community - as needed, and at whatever stages are needed. Gain feedback.
 * 2) Report conclusions

Notes and comments

 * Gain understanding includes specific understandings (of this kind of edit war):
 * Gain an understanding of the moves in various edit wars of this kind -- what tactics have warriors used, what approaches did admins apply.
 * Characterize the history and structure of such edit wars, in broad terms, to make clear what was tried, and how successful (or otherwise) it was; and how it failed (if it did).
 * Look at the way alliances built up, on both sides
 * Look at who joined and left the edit wars, and who stayed.
 * Look at the approaches of both sides, including sysops and experienced editors. For example, did they not get neutral admins, did experienced admins get hounded out, did the experienced users they got who stayed, turn out to be subtly pushing a side too, and so on.
 * Is it always the same Wikipedians who address wars on a given theme?


 * ... and also general understandings (of "POV warring" in general)
 * A significant component will include looking at "POV warring" in general and approaches to it. POV warring generally is a key part of these wars, is of wider interest, and may perhaps prove slightly more tractable in some ways. Consideration of POV warring generally, may have potential to suggest viable approaches to ethnic and cultural edit wars.


 * Ideas:
 * The ideas should cover a variety of types. For example, some will be standard approaches, some novel, some speculative. Ideally some will also be long term (to address a difficult area over months and years), others will be short term (to bring a difficult edit war back within Wiki norms and under control), and some will be very specific (better handling of difficult editors, including difficult editors who may have valid points).
 * Consider approaches that may merit trialling.
 * Ensure approaches are within the existing ethos of the wiki and encyclopedic community, but are effective. Where this may not be completely possible, consider what the cost (in content and community terms) and benefits would be of the idea.
 * So far as possible, the group should seek to make proposals for changed or new processes within the power of the community itself to call upon and operate, as nearly "just part of everyday activity" as possible, be readily accessible to users and open in operation, and avoid creating unnecessary layers.