User:FimusTauri/RfCwO

This is not a Wikipedia article, nor is it policy or a guideline. It is an idea by one Wikipedian to address a 'hole' in the arbitration process. Any editor is free and invited to make suggestions or comment about this on the discussion page.

Requests for Comment with Oversight (RfCwO)

Purpose

To resolve content disputes where both sides have become so entrenched that discussion and informal mediation cannot resolve the issue.

Procedure

Anyone can request that a case be opened, placing that request on the appropriate page (to be created). They should summarise the nature of the dispute, fairly presenting the views of both sides, along with evidence that the dispute is long-running and that other forms of arbitration have been attempted (and failed). Other involved editors must be informed.

Once the case has been presented an "oversight committee" (volunteer admins from MedCab perhaps?) will consider the request and, so long as the basic criteria have been met open the case.

At this point, one (or two?) participants from each side are given a reasonable period (72 hours?) to prepare a "case". One member of the oversight committee will volunteer to oversee the case and (s)he will then prepare an "introductory statement". This will outline, briefly, the nature of the case, its extent and scope and also which article(s) or policy/guideline are to be affected. The participants on either side can then challenge any aspect of this summary, but the final decision will be in the hands of the overseer. Once the wording of the introduction is finalised it will be placed at the top of the case page. Under this, the "principal protagonists" will place their arguments, including supporting evidence and a proposal for the final wording. Other involved editors can then present (briefly) any additional evidence they feel may have been missed. After the "preparation period" is over, all of the involved editors must then step back and cease from contributing unless asked for additional evidence/clarification by the overseer. The RfCwO is then officially opened and given site-wide advertisement. The community are then invited to comment and discuss with the aim of achieving consensus.

Explanations and caveats

The main purpose of the "stepping back" of the main protagonists is that they very often end up rehashing the arguments over and over, "drowning out" other voices to no useful end. If the dispute has already been going on for some time then both sides should be able to present a full and complete case with any evidence required. They will already be aware of the opposite side's position and should present any evidence against that position in their initial statements. The rest of the community can then decide on the strength of the evidence.

It may be that some currently uninvolved editors were once involved, or that an editor new to the dispute has strongly-held views. In order to prevent these editors from "clogging up" the dispute in the way that the involved editors would have been likely to do, there should be an admonition to all participating editors to be brief, to avoid personal attacks and to avoid impugning the motives of opposing editors. The overseer should have power to warn such editors should their contributions become excessive and disruptive and ultimately to ask that they present a "final statement" and then step back in the way that other involved editors will have already done.

The case presented must be strictly about the issue and not about the opponents (or what the opponents "might say"). The overseer should have power to remove any material that does not conform to this.

A reasonable time limit (1 month?) should be placed on the case. At any time, the overseer may decide that a reasonable consensus has been reached and present this to the community for consideration in the form of the final wording. If a general consensus is achieved then the case will be closed and the final wording placed in the appropriate article/policy/guideline. Consensus should be more certain before this step is taken with regard to policies/guidelines.

If no consensus can be achieved then I am not sure what would be best. If a lack of consensus is because of a lack of interest, then it should probably be declared "no case to answer" and the affected articles restored to their pre-dispute condition. Otherwise, it may be an idea to see if the involved editors would accept a summary decision by the oversight committee, who would make their decision by simple majority. Failing that, the only possibility is to look for an underlying cause that may need to be addressed.

I wonder if it would be best to ask if participants would accept a majority decision in advance of opening the case. i.e. they should state not only whether they are willing to participate, but if they will accept a majority decision by committee if consensus cannot be reached. Unwillingness to accept a majority decision should not prevent the case being heard, as consensus may well be possible.

Notes

This is really a collection of "first thoughts". I am sure there are potential pitfalls that may need to be addressed. Please feel free to comment on the talk page.