- Suggestion: Would you consider moving the now long conversation about Schechtman, etc, under Tiamut's proposal? Maybe advise parties not to recapitulate their whole debate on the Arbcom page? Thanks. HG | Talk 00:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This case seems to welcome us to think outside the box. Perhaps we could float some ideas for discussion, rather than merely keep spinning out proposals on the project page. Here are a few ideas, I would welcome feedback.
a) What if we tried to find some facilitation-minded editors/admins to play a more directive hand in articles with heated discussions? (Cp. Padillah at Palestinian people.) Perhaps, once a discussion gets overheated, or edit warring starts, an uninvolved facilitator(s) could get assigned to drive toward resolution. This would differ from the forms of dispute resolution that require the consent of opponents. Needs to be fleshed out (e.g., could the facilitators require strikeout or deletion of uncivil or soapbox comments, could they judge when consensus is sufficiently reached, etc.).
b) What if we made a more consistent effort to record "consensus" decisions on Talk pages, esp controversial articles where the Talk starts to run into multiple archives? What if editors outside the disputes could be given a freer rein to refactor Talk to keep threads intact?
c) What if there were more centralized consensus decisions on aspects of the I-P conflict? Like, across the board agreements on key terms, encyclopedic wording, representation of data, reliable sources, groundrules for "See Also" sections, etc. Ok, I suppose all this is covered by existing policy, but certain issues get re-fought on multiple I-P pages. Might some disputes be centralized? Or might questions resolved in one article then be inscribed, or at least proposed, for a centralized record of I-P area consensus views?
d) Principle: To diminish or eliminate the battle atmosphere, a combination of individual sanctions and article- (or topic-) based measures are necessary. It is important to ensure a negative feedback loop for editors who contribute significantly to the battle, yet broader steps will be needed to make the articles (and topic) inviting and conducive to collaborative editing.
e) Analysis of evidence: The involuntary mentorship imposed on PR should either be substantively improved, so as to make a constructive outcome more likely, or it should be abandoned. (NB. Saying this based on my evidence on the weak procedures in place. Without prejudice, one way or another, about whether PR deserves mentorship or any other sanctions.)
f) Principle: Absent a significant change in terms and procedures, a voluntary mentorship is laudable but cannot readily serve as a substitute for mechanisms that directly enforce Wikipedia policies. (NB Saying this in concert with my proposal to improve mentorship terms.)
g) Principle?? Editors with a strong POV toward an article should expect to contribute article content and to defer or yield to consensus, at least when Talk conversations involve editors with more neutral or indifferent views. (Hmmm. Don't want to offend anyone. But I would like folks to be more attuned to their POV orientations and the concomitant limitations that might need to flow from their commitments.)
- I support all of these brainstorms. The details of them need to be discussed to see how workable they are. Every real Encyclopedia also has multiple editors with different orientations and points of view; but the chief editors set standards and key terms across the board; and therefore some encyclopedias are more biased then others. Here, we are the editors, and also its chief editors, and if we are professionally enough, then we should be able to hammer out an even approach to everything; leaving enough flexibility to reopen accepted ideas if challenged. Itzse (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)