Talk:Dispute resolution

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Counting Bytes, not Edits[edit]

Sometimes, authors have problems getting their contributions reversed for no good reason, see[1]. After 7400 edits I make a suggestion [2], how this disease could be cured by small changes (or supplements) in WP. I try to translate:

  • There are many authors with many edits, who offer no posts with new content. It does not make sense to count only the number, it would be better to consider the length of the edits. WP does not grow through many short corrections, but by contributions that are longer than 500 bytes, sometimes even 20,000 bytes.
  • I have the impression that some candidates never produce longer text posts, but just jealous control "their" perfect product, so no one can change anything about it or complete. Their main occupation is to revert. They correct any details, but revert to reasons such as "no improvement". No attempt to discuss with the author about the text amendment.
  • Hard to prove: Some particularly active "extinguishers" and "Revertierer" apparently enjoy the backing and the goodwill of certain admins.

Proposal A: The Reverts from each author are counted (and shown). From a maximum of five Reverts per month there is an automatic time-out (also a month or just a week?). For very productive authors, the deadline may be shortened. If I remember correctly, during the last 5 years, I have reverted a maximum of 10 posts and every time I have stated the reason on the corresponding talk page.

If one controls (outside of school holidays mornings) the "recent changes", you can see 10 Reverts of nonsense entries of type "Tommy is stupid" - within one hour! Of course these Reverts are not counted! There is a clear distinction possible: a) If an author, who produced several kBytes text, complains because of a Revert, this is counted. b) A silly boy will hardly complain if his stupid remarks kicked out again. Those Reverts do not count, they are necessary.

Proposal B: The produced kBytes are summed if they exceed a certain minimum threshold of, for example, 500 bytes. A good writer produces few long posts that fill WP. Those who contribute hundreds of short posts with only five bytes are quite eagerly, but no writers. On the page Special: Preferences, the "mass" of the produced kBytes is shown next to the (less interesting) number of operations. A good option would be the average length of posts.

Proposal C: Remember the quote from Albert Einstein: "The rule of the stupid is invincible, because there are so many, and their voices are just like ours." It is necessary to introduce a weight function that allows one to distinguish between the arguments of those few productive authors and the arguments of those, whose contributions are limited to short posts as "typo" and "Revert". Not the number of WP-actions may be decisive, but the constructive work items, measured in kilobytes.

In the treatment of edit-wars, each Admin has to distinguish between productive authors (with many kbytes) and others that deal preferably with small items like typo. In this way the work of active writers is not dumped into the trash.

Proposal D: There is a "suggestion box" created where problems and suggestions seriously discussed and decisions are enforced. This requires a contact person ([3]) who listens the concerns of authors and answers seriously. To avoid overflowing this grief box, a criterion can be installed upstream: only those entries are accepted, which are supported of at least three productive authors (see definition above). It is important to be sure that for every problem a result is found and implemented, if one wants to avoid that authors turn away completely demotivated.

If WP can move? --Herbertweidner (talk) 12:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution committee?[edit]

It looks like this committee doesn't actually exist, so maybe the link to the page should be removed. 68.197.237.22 21:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there a Meta ArbCom?[edit]

I need help with severe abuse of flags by Russian WP admins and bureaucrats. Is there ANY mediation body that I can turn to? Leo711 (talk) 06:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

No, there is thankfully no global arbcom. Please see the ruwiki local arbcom for local issues, or start an RfC as a last resort. Thanks, Ajraddatz (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)