| Revision as of 18:47, 29 December 2008 editGoneAwayNowAndRetired (talk | contribs)14,896 edits →Flo's comment: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:15, 29 December 2008 edit undoVassyana (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,130 editsm →Appreciate the sentiment but...: fix linkNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| I'm strongly in favor of a new Policy Committee that would assist the Community in making and revising policy. Using an ArbCom style election to choose the member sounds good to me. I'm not certain that a structure for resolving the disputes need an ArbCom style, though. Instead, I hope that the process would not be a reaction to disruptive editing of policy, but a more systematic way to make and revise policy. ]] 18:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC) | I'm strongly in favor of a new Policy Committee that would assist the Community in making and revising policy. Using an ArbCom style election to choose the member sounds good to me. I'm not certain that a structure for resolving the disputes need an ArbCom style, though. Instead, I hope that the process would not be a reaction to disruptive editing of policy, but a more systematic way to make and revise policy. ]] 18:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :That would be an ideal thing, but I think things are still way, way, way too far off for something like that. And most users honestly aren't that interested in policy building. The system for minor stuff chugs along fine, it's the wars and fights that everyone sees, and that's why I wrote this using the AC style. I can honestly see the Content body being '''far''' busier, but the policy side having longer, more involved cases. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 18:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC) | :That would be an ideal thing, but I think things are still way, way, way too far off for something like that. And most users honestly aren't that interested in policy building. The system for minor stuff chugs along fine, it's the wars and fights that everyone sees, and that's why I wrote this using the AC style. I can honestly see the Content body being '''far''' busier, but the policy side having longer, more involved cases. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 18:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == Appreciate the sentiment but... == | |||
| I sincerely appreciate the sentiment and intentions of this proposal. However, I very strongly disagree with it. Regardless of intentions otherwise (and feel free to color me a cynic), this will essentially create little more than two highly politicized bodies imposing top-down solutions on content and policy. I would add that many times I see the phrase "content dispute" raised, it's a matter ''involving'' content but that has behavior that extends well beyond a reasonable content disagreement. For intractable content disputes, something in the line of binding mediation ''may'' be a good step to add, though I'm not keen on the model presented here. | |||
| Regardless of my other feelings about such measures, we simply have not explored other options that can help fix much of the problem, use extant processes, and clarify what needs more drastic measures. For example, refusal to participate in discussion and consensus building; derailing conversations through ] and ]; instigating disputes, and blatant misrepresentation of sources should be all handled consistantly as disruption before we take any further drastic measures. I believe that addressing those issues would ''significantly'' cut down on the number of intractable disagreements. I've seen several areas of heated dispute that moved on to productive discussion when certain disruptive elements were removed. Additionally, with the disruptive elements removed, it will become much easier to determine the state and nature of the legitimate dispute. ] (]) 19:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:15, 29 December 2008
Rationale?
Probably worth getting this in/clearer before the rush. How does this proposal fix things? Fritzpoll (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Simple: the AC won't touch policy/content disputes, of which 99% of our drama is for, and there's no binding resolution methods in place for those things beyond the usual circuses of noticeboards. This puts a solid firm DR step in place for all these things. The AC rejects all those cases--this will head off a ton of stuff, and give finality and a chance for a fair voice to many such disputes. rootology (C)(T) 18:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Flo's comment
I'm strongly in favor of a new Policy Committee that would assist the Community in making and revising policy. Using an ArbCom style election to choose the member sounds good to me. I'm not certain that a structure for resolving the disputes need an ArbCom style, though. Instead, I hope that the process would not be a reaction to disruptive editing of policy, but a more systematic way to make and revise policy. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- That would be an ideal thing, but I think things are still way, way, way too far off for something like that. And most users honestly aren't that interested in policy building. The system for minor stuff chugs along fine, it's the wars and fights that everyone sees, and that's why I wrote this using the AC style. I can honestly see the Content body being far busier, but the policy side having longer, more involved cases. rootology (C)(T) 18:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Appreciate the sentiment but...
I sincerely appreciate the sentiment and intentions of this proposal. However, I very strongly disagree with it. Regardless of intentions otherwise (and feel free to color me a cynic), this will essentially create little more than two highly politicized bodies imposing top-down solutions on content and policy. I would add that many times I see the phrase "content dispute" raised, it's a matter involving content but that has behavior that extends well beyond a reasonable content disagreement. For intractable content disputes, something in the line of binding mediation may be a good step to add, though I'm not keen on the model presented here.
Regardless of my other feelings about such measures, we simply have not explored other options that can help fix much of the problem, use extant processes, and clarify what needs more drastic measures. For example, refusal to participate in discussion and consensus building; derailing conversations through horse brutality and truthism; instigating disputes, and blatant misrepresentation of sources should be all handled consistantly as disruption before we take any further drastic measures. I believe that addressing those issues would significantly cut down on the number of intractable disagreements. I've seen several areas of heated dispute that moved on to productive discussion when certain disruptive elements were removed. Additionally, with the disruptive elements removed, it will become much easier to determine the state and nature of the legitimate dispute. Vassyana (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)