| Revision as of 08:50, 28 August 2005 editRobert McClenon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers197,193 edits remove Famekeeper comment from here to deleted nonsense← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:56, 28 August 2005 edit undoRobert McClenon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers197,193 edits →Solutions?: concerns about caseworkersNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| #Enlarge or otherwise change ArbComm so it can hear more cases more quickly. | #Enlarge or otherwise change ArbComm so it can hear more cases more quickly. | ||
| #Invent a new designation -- maybe "caseworker". These people would be empowered and possibly have the duty to resolve any disagreements as they see fit. Think of them as combining the functions of a mediator and enforcer. They would need to be approved by at least 90 percent of those voting. ] ] 01:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC) | #Invent a new designation -- maybe "caseworker". These people would be empowered and possibly have the duty to resolve any disagreements as they see fit. Think of them as combining the functions of a mediator and enforcer. They would need to be approved by at least 90 percent of those voting. ] ] 01:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ::I agree that the ArbCom needs to be enlarged and have smaller panels. | |||
| ::Before I can support the idea of another designation of functionaries, I would like an explanation of exactly what they would and would not do. How would they resolve disagreements beyond mediation? If they would resolve disagreements by locking the article, that solution already exists, and is undesirable. If they would resolve disputes by blocking any revert that was inconsistent with what had been mediated, then I am concerned about the possibility of abuse. As I mentioned later in the paper, there need to be better limits on the use by administrators of special powers. The vast majority of admins use their powers wisely and cautiously, but a small number of disputes, such as an admin blocking an admin, result in considerable tension. If we were to create a tier of "caseworkers", we would need to decide how to remove the occasional rogue caseworker. Also, would caseworkers resolve content disputes by finding consensus and presenting alternative views as POV, or by making unilateral decisions? I assume it would be the former, but what would be the recourse if an occasional caseworker declared that there was a consensus when 45% of the editors said that there was not? ] 13:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:56, 28 August 2005
Solutions?
Robert, I only read part of what you wrote on the main page here, but I agree that things could be improved and that ideally mediation would come before user conduct RFCs.
Maybe we should start Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution reform? Maurreen (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Here are a couple ideas, food for thought:
- Enlarge or otherwise change ArbComm so it can hear more cases more quickly.
- Invent a new designation -- maybe "caseworker". These people would be empowered and possibly have the duty to resolve any disagreements as they see fit. Think of them as combining the functions of a mediator and enforcer. They would need to be approved by at least 90 percent of those voting. Maurreen (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that the ArbCom needs to be enlarged and have smaller panels.
- Before I can support the idea of another designation of functionaries, I would like an explanation of exactly what they would and would not do. How would they resolve disagreements beyond mediation? If they would resolve disagreements by locking the article, that solution already exists, and is undesirable. If they would resolve disputes by blocking any revert that was inconsistent with what had been mediated, then I am concerned about the possibility of abuse. As I mentioned later in the paper, there need to be better limits on the use by administrators of special powers. The vast majority of admins use their powers wisely and cautiously, but a small number of disputes, such as an admin blocking an admin, result in considerable tension. If we were to create a tier of "caseworkers", we would need to decide how to remove the occasional rogue caseworker. Also, would caseworkers resolve content disputes by finding consensus and presenting alternative views as POV, or by making unilateral decisions? I assume it would be the former, but what would be the recourse if an occasional caseworker declared that there was a consensus when 45% of the editors said that there was not? Robert McClenon 13:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)